Romero v. State
125 So. 3d 224, 2013 WL 513066, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2250, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 355
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 13, 2013·No. No. 4D12-2667·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s motion for postconviction relief. The record conclusively refutes appellant’s claim that she pleaded unaware that she would be deported.1
During the plea colloquy, the following transpired:
COURT: Are you a United States citizen?
THE DEFENDANT: No.
COURT: Do you understand that this plea will subject you to deportation?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
COURT: Knowing that, do you still want to plead.
THE DEFENDANT: No contest.
COURT: My question is, knowing that by pleading you are going to be deported do you still want to plead?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
Appellant was clearly aware that her plea in this case would result in her deportation. The Padilla claim is without merit.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Romero v. State, 125 So. 3d 224, 2013 WL 513066, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2250, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 355 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).
125 So. 3d 224 (Romero v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Moore v. State
118 So. 3d 281 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)