State v. Tabuteau

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Tabuteau

16 So. 3d 991, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 12506, 2009 WL 2601939

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 26, 2009

Docket3D08-1164

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 So. 3d 991 (State v. Tabuteau) 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

State v. Tabuteau, 16 So. 3d 991, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 12506, 2009 WL 2601939 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to vacate his plea as the conviction in this case was not the sole ground for deportation. The documents in this case show that defendant *992 was being deported not solely because of the conviction in this case, but also because he illegally entered the country, a fact which was admitted to by the defendant during his deportation proceedings. Thus, defendant has not shown that he is subject to removal solely because of the plea in this case. Forrest v. State, 988 So.2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Accordingly, defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to advise him of deportation consequences before accepting the plea in this case. Rosas v. State, 991 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); see State v. Green, 944 So.2d 208 (Fla.2006).

Defendant’s claim that, but for the conviction in this case, he might be entitled to an adjustment in his immigration status is too speculative to merit relief. A state court is not a proper forum to litigate whether appellant would have received an adjustment in his immigration status. This determination is within the exclusive discretion of federal officials. 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (2000). Rosas, 991 So.2d at 1003-04.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to vacate his plea as the conviction in this case was not the sole ground for deportation. The documents in this case show that defendant *992 was being deported not solely because of the conviction in this case, but also because he illegally entered the country, a fact which was admitted to by the defendant during his deportation proceedings. Thus, defendant has not shown that he is subject to removal solely because of the plea in this case. Forrest v. State, 988 So.2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Accordingly, defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to advise him of deportation consequences before accepting the plea in this case. Rosas v. State, 991 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); see State v. Green, 944 So.2d 208 (Fla.2006).

Defendant’s claim that, but for the conviction in this case, he might be entitled to an adjustment in his immigration status is too speculative to merit relief. A state court is not a proper forum to litigate whether appellant would have received an adjustment in his immigration status. This determination is within the exclusive discretion of federal officials. 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (2000). Rosas, 991 So.2d at 1003-04.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 So. 3d 991, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 12506, 2009 WL 2601939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tabuteau-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack