Estime v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Estime v. State

826 So. 2d 524, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 13978, 2002 WL 31115533

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 25, 2002·No. No. 4D02-730·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without prejudice to file a sworn, legally sufficient motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42, 47 (Fla.2000); Orduno v. State, 800 So.2d 669, 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(“[Orduno] asserted that the trial court did not advise him of the deportation consequences of his plea as required under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172, that he did not know he could be deported if he pleaded no contest, and that he would not have entered the plea if he had known he could be deported. Orduno has stated a facially sufficient claim for relief’).

GUNTHER, FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without prejudice to file a sworn, legally sufficient motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42, 47 (Fla.2000); Orduno v. State, 800 So.2d 669, 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(“[Orduno] asserted that the trial court did not advise him of the deportation consequences of his plea as required under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172, that he did not know he could be deported if he pleaded no contest, and that he would not have entered the plea if he had known he could be deported. Orduno has stated a facially sufficient claim for relief’).

GUNTHER, FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Estime v. State, 826 So. 2d 524, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 13978, 2002 WL 31115533 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

826 So. 2d 524 (Estime v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related