Paris v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Paris v. State

124 So. 3d 412, 2013 WL 5762011, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 17029

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 25, 2013

DocketNo. 5D12-4736

StatusPublished

This text of 124 So. 3d 412 (Paris 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

Paris v. State, 124 So. 3d 412, 2013 WL 5762011, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 17029 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Javonty Paris appeals the order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion to withdraw plea and vacate sentence. On appeal, he raises two arguments as to why he should be allowed to withdraw his nolo contendere plea, only one of which merits discussion.

Paris alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective because she failed to advise him of the clear immigration consequences of the plea. He claims that, if counsel had informed him that the plea would likely subject him to deportation, he would have proceeded to trial or attempted to negotiate a better plea. The Supreme Court has established that defense counsel’s failure to give legal advice regarding deportation consequences of a plea can constitute ineffective assistance. See Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010). Here, the record does not conclusively refute Paris’s allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Paris’s allegation that his counsel was ineffective or hold an eviden-tiary hearing on the issue.

REMANDED WITH . INSTRUCTIONS.

TORPY, C.J., ORFINGER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Javonty Paris appeals the order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion to withdraw plea and vacate sentence. On appeal, he raises two arguments as to why he should be allowed to withdraw his nolo contendere plea, only one of which merits discussion.

Paris alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective because she failed to advise him of the clear immigration consequences of the plea. He claims that, if counsel had informed him that the plea would likely subject him to deportation, he would have proceeded to trial or attempted to negotiate a better plea. The Supreme Court has established that defense counsel’s failure to give legal advice regarding deportation consequences of a plea can constitute ineffective assistance. See Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010). Here, the record does not conclusively refute Paris’s allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Paris’s allegation that his counsel was ineffective or hold an eviden-tiary hearing on the issue.

REMANDED WITH . INSTRUCTIONS.

TORPY, C.J., ORFINGER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 So. 3d 412, 2013 WL 5762011, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 17029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paris-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack