Venta v. State

126 So. 3d 254, 2008 WL 5412219, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 20368
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Venta v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 993 So. 2d 603
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 31, 2008·No. No. 3D08-2757·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Gustavo Venta (defendant) appeals from the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.

Defendants motion raises several grounds for relief. We agree with the trial court that only one ground was timely raised — that defendants plea was involuntary because the trial court failed to advise him of the deportation consequences of the plea. Defendants motion fails to allege that the conviction in this case is the sole basis for his deportation as required under State v. Green, 944 So.2d 208 (Fla.2006). See, e.g., Dumenigo v. State, 988 So.2d [255]*2551201 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Rodriques v. State, 980 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Accordingly, we affirm the order under review, but remand for the trial court to give defendant an opportunity to file an amended motion correcting the deficiency, if possible. Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007).

Affirmed, and remanded with instructions.

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

Venta v. State, 126 So. 3d 254, 2008 WL 5412219, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 20368 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

126 So. 3d 254 (Venta v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Green
944 So. 2d 208 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2006)
Dumenigo v. State
988 So. 2d 1201 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Spera v. State
971 So. 2d 754 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2007)
Rodriques v. State
980 So. 2d 1203 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)