Hardware v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hardware v. State

185 So. 3d 530, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15189, 2015 WL 5965218

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 14, 2015

Docket14-0981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 185 So. 3d 530 (Hardware 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

Hardware v. State, 185 So. 3d 530, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15189, 2015 WL 5965218 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. Sinclair, 995 So.2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (defendant sought to vacate his plea based upon counsel’s failure to advise of deportation consequences of the plea; however, defendant was deportable based not only his plea, but based on the fact that he overstayed his visa and was in the country illegally at the time of the plea; held that defendant was not entitled to seek relief unless he “could establish the plea in the case under attack is the only basis for deportation”)(quoting Forrest v. State, 988 So.2d 38, 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (emphasis in original)). See also Cano v. State, 112 So.3d 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding that a defendant seeking to vacate his plea pursuant to Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), must establish that he was present in the country lawfully at the time of the plea and that the plea at issue is the sole basis for the defendant’s deportation).

LAGOA and FERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. Sinclair, 995 So.2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (defendant sought to vacate his plea based upon counsel’s failure to advise of deportation consequences of the plea; however, defendant was deportable based not only his plea, but based on the fact that he overstayed his visa and was in the country illegally at the time of the plea; held that defendant was not entitled to seek relief unless he “could establish the plea in the case under attack is the only basis for deportation”)(quoting Forrest v. State, 988 So.2d 38, 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (emphasis in original)). See also Cano v. State, 112 So.3d 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding that a defendant seeking to vacate his plea pursuant to Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), must establish that he was present in the country lawfully at the time of the plea and that the plea at issue is the sole basis for the defendant’s deportation).

LAGOA and FERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 So. 3d 530, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15189, 2015 WL 5965218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardware-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack