Legal Opinion

Estime v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 25, 2002No. 4D02-730PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

Affirmed without prejudice to file a sworn, legally sufficient motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42, 47 (Fla.2000); Orduno v. State, 800 So.2d 669, 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(“[Orduno] asserted that the trial court did not advise him of the deportation consequences of his plea as required under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172, that he did not know he could be deported if he pleaded no contest, and that he would not have entered the plea if he had known he could be deported. Orduno has stated a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Peart v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2000
  2. Orduno v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2001

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Estime v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API