Volcimus v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Volcimus v. State

87 So. 3d 1263, 2012 WL 1870937, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8151

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 23, 2012

DocketNos. 3D12-117, 3D12-110

StatusPublished

This text of 87 So. 3d 1263 (Volcimus 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

Volcimus v. State, 87 So. 3d 1263, 2012 WL 1870937, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8151 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals an order denying his post-conviction relief motion. In his motion the defendant argued that he was not afforded effective assistance of trial counsel because his counsel did not adequately warn him of the immigration consequences of his plea, as required by Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S.—, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010).¹ The trial court denied the defendant’s motion relying on Flores v. State, 57 So.3d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). In its response to the post-conviction motion, the State apparently failed to alert the trial court to this Court’s pronouncement in Hernandez v. State, 61 So.3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), finding conflict with Flores.

On the authority of Hernandez, we reverse the order and remand for an eviden-tiary hearing consistent with that opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals an order denying his post-conviction relief motion. In his motion the defendant argued that he was not afforded effective assistance of trial counsel because his counsel did not adequately warn him of the immigration consequences of his plea, as required by Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S.—, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010).¹ The trial court denied the defendant’s motion relying on Flores v. State, 57 So.3d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). In its response to the post-conviction motion, the State apparently failed to alert the trial court to this Court’s pronouncement in Hernandez v. State, 61 So.3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), finding conflict with Flores.

On the authority of Hernandez, we reverse the order and remand for an eviden-tiary hearing consistent with that opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 So. 3d 1263, 2012 WL 1870937, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/volcimus-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack