Legal Opinion

Ibarra v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 20, 2013No. 4D11-1459PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm in all respects the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s untimely motion for postconviction relief. We write to explain the various reasons why petitioner is not entitled to relief on his claim that counsel was ineffective in giving him inaccurate advice about the immigration consequences of the plea. The trial court correctly concluded that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), does not apply retroactively to this August 8, 2002 plea. Chaidez v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1103, 185 L.Ed.2d 149 (2013); Hernandez v. State, 124 So.3d…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Padilla v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  2. Chaidez v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  3. Hernandez v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2012
  4. Forrest v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2008
  5. Rosas v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2008

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Juan Alberto Blanco Garcia v. State of TennesseeTennessee Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Angela Rosario v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2015
  3. Yanez v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2015
  4. Sinclair v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API