Orellana v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Orellana v. State

8 So. 3d 485, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 4172, 2009 WL 1175320

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 4, 2009

Docket1D08-3292

StatusPublished

This text of 8 So. 3d 485 (Orellana 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

Orellana v. State, 8 So. 3d 485, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 4172, 2009 WL 1175320 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals an order summarily denying a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The appellant’s motion, timely filed pursuant to State v. Green, 944 So.2d 208, (Fla.2006), alleges that the trial court did not inform the appellant of the possibility of deportation. Because the trial transcripts are no longer available, the lower court relied on a written plea agreement in summarily denying the appellant’s claim. Where an appellant alleges that the trial court did not inform the appellant of the possible deportation consequences of a plea, a written plea agreement is no substitute for a plea colloquy. See Perriello v. State, 684 So.2d 258, 259-60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Because the record now before us fails to conclusively refute the appellant’s claim, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings.

WOLF, KAHN, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals an order summarily denying a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The appellant’s motion, timely filed pursuant to State v. Green, 944 So.2d 208, (Fla.2006), alleges that the trial court did not inform the appellant of the possibility of deportation. Because the trial transcripts are no longer available, the lower court relied on a written plea agreement in summarily denying the appellant’s claim. Where an appellant alleges that the trial court did not inform the appellant of the possible deportation consequences of a plea, a written plea agreement is no substitute for a plea colloquy. See Perriello v. State, 684 So.2d 258, 259-60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Because the record now before us fails to conclusively refute the appellant’s claim, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings.

WOLF, KAHN, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 So. 3d 485, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 4172, 2009 WL 1175320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orellana-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack