Hyde v. State

97 So. 3d 944, 2012 WL 3964993, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15320
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 12, 2012
DocketNo. 4D11-3918
StatusPublished

This text of 97 So. 3d 944 (Hyde 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
Hyde v. State, 97 So. 3d 944, 2012 WL 3964993, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15320 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary denial of appellant’s untimely and successive postconviction motion which attempted to challenge his 1996 plea. Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), is not retroactive. Hernandez v. State, 61 So.3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), rev. granted, 81 So.3d 414 (Fla.2012); Davis v. State, 69 So.3d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Appellant, a habitual felony offender, has other convictions subjecting him to deportation, and he has not shown that the plea in this case alone subjects him to deportation. See Forrest v. State, 988 So.2d 38, 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Buton v. State, 995 So.2d 1130, 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Further, contrary to appellant’s sworn allegation that he was not advised, appellant signed a plea form which advised of the possibility of deportation, and he acknowledged on the record during the plea colloquy that he had read and understood the form. See Flores v. State, 57 So.3d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Peart v. State, 754 So.2d 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

Appellant has initiated numerous untimely and meritless postconviction challenges and appeals. He appears to have brought false information before the court. He is cautioned that abuse of postconviction relief procedures may result in sanctions. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999); § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2012); § 944.28(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(m). The bringing of false information before a court may result in a perjury prosecution or other sanctions. Oquendo v. State, 2 So.3d 1001, 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Affirmed.

WARNER, TAYLOR and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Padilla v. Kentucky
559 U.S. 356 (Supreme Court, 2010)
Peart v. State
754 So. 2d 723 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Oquendo v. State
2 So. 3d 1001 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Buton v. State
995 So. 2d 1130 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
State v. Spencer
751 So. 2d 47 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1999)
Forrest v. State
988 So. 2d 38 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Davis v. State
69 So. 3d 315 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Flores v. State
57 So. 3d 218 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Hernandez v. State
61 So. 3d 1144 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 So. 3d 944, 2012 WL 3964993, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyde-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.