Johnny v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Johnny v. State

137 So. 3d 1076, 2014 WL 1031400, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3926

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 19, 2014

DocketNo. 4D13-2456

StatusPublished

This text of 137 So. 3d 1076 (Johnny 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

Johnny v. State, 137 So. 3d 1076, 2014 WL 1031400, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3926 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s untimely and successive rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. Appellant has not shown that the court erred in denying his claim for relief under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473,176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010).

The trial court denied appellant’s prior motion because he signed and initialed a plea form that advised him unequivocally that his plea “will” result in his deportation. Appellant has no difficulty with the English language and averred during the plea colloquy that he had read and understood the information on the plea form. This refutes the allegation that he entered the plea unaware that he would be deported. Jackson v. State, 112 So.3d 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Ioselli v. State, 122 So.3d [1077]*1077388, 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Peart v. State, 754 So.2d 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

Affirmed.

MAY, CIKLIN and FORST, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s untimely and successive rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. Appellant has not shown that the court erred in denying his claim for relief under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473,176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010).

The trial court denied appellant’s prior motion because he signed and initialed a plea form that advised him unequivocally that his plea “will” result in his deportation. Appellant has no difficulty with the English language and averred during the plea colloquy that he had read and understood the information on the plea form. This refutes the allegation that he entered the plea unaware that he would be deported. Jackson v. State, 112 So.3d 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Ioselli v. State, 122 So.3d [1077]*1077388, 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Peart v. State, 754 So.2d 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

Affirmed.

MAY, CIKLIN and FORST, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 So. 3d 1076, 2014 WL 1031400, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnny-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack