Narrative Opinion Summary
FranHyn Glinton appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He claims that his nolo contendere plea to robbery was involuntary due to lack of information regarding the deportation consequences of the conviction. However, his claim is deemed facially insufficient because he has not shown that he is threatened with deportation as a direct result of the robbery conviction, referencing Mendez v. State and Bellevue v. State. The court affirms the denial but allows Glinton the opportunity to file a new motion that adequately demonstrates a threat of deportation related to the conviction, stipulating that any such motion submitted within sixty days of the mandate will be considered timely and not classified as successive. The decision is affirmed with concurrence from Judges Stringer and Canady.
Legal Issues Addressed
Facial Insufficiency of Postconviction Relief Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found the appellant's motion for postconviction relief facially insufficient, citing a failure to demonstrate an actual threat of deportation due to the conviction.
Reasoning: However, his claim is deemed facially insufficient because he has not shown that he is threatened with deportation as a direct result of the robbery conviction.
Involuntary Plea Due to Deportation Consequencessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's claim that his plea was involuntary because he was not informed of deportation consequences was rejected due to a lack of evidence showing a direct threat of deportation resulting from the conviction.
Reasoning: He claims that his nolo contendere plea to robbery was involuntary due to lack of information regarding the deportation consequences of the conviction. However, his claim is deemed facially insufficient because he has not shown that he is threatened with deportation as a direct result of the robbery conviction.
Opportunity to Amend Postconviction Relief Motionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court allows the appellant to file a new motion addressing the deficiencies, specifically needing to show a deportation threat due to the robbery conviction, within a specified timeframe.
Reasoning: The court affirms the denial but allows Glinton the opportunity to file a new motion that adequately demonstrates a threat of deportation related to the conviction, stipulating that any such motion submitted within sixty days of the mandate will be considered timely and not classified as successive.