Glinton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Glinton v. State

850 So. 2d 609, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 10876, 2003 WL 21673046

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 18, 2003

DocketNo. 2D03-230

StatusPublished

This text of 850 So. 2d 609 (Glinton v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Glinton v. State, 850 So. 2d 609, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 10876, 2003 WL 21673046 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

FULMER, Judge.

FranHyn Glinton appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, Glin-ton alleged that his nolo contendere plea to robbery was involuntary because he was not informed of the deportation consequences of the conviction. His claim is facially insufficient because he has not affirmatively alleged nor demonstrated that he is threatened with deportation as a result of the robbery conviction. See Mendez v. State, 805 So.2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Bellevue v. State, 794 So.2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Therefore, we affirm without prejudice to whatever right Glin-ton may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion if he can establish that his robbery conviction has resulted in a threat of deportation. Any such motion filed within sixty days of the issuance of this mandate shall be deemed timely filed and shall not be denied as successive.

Affirmed.

STRINGER and CANADY, JJ., Concur.

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

FULMER, Judge.

FranHyn Glinton appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, Glin-ton alleged that his nolo contendere plea to robbery was involuntary because he was not informed of the deportation consequences of the conviction. His claim is facially insufficient because he has not affirmatively alleged nor demonstrated that he is threatened with deportation as a result of the robbery conviction. See Mendez v. State, 805 So.2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Bellevue v. State, 794 So.2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Therefore, we affirm without prejudice to whatever right Glin-ton may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion if he can establish that his robbery conviction has resulted in a threat of deportation. Any such motion filed within sixty days of the issuance of this mandate shall be deemed timely filed and shall not be denied as successive.

Affirmed.

STRINGER and CANADY, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

850 So. 2d 609, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 10876, 2003 WL 21673046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glinton-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack