Romero v. State
Romero v. State
125 So. 3d 224; 2013 WL 513066; 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2250; 38 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 355
(Southern Reporter, Third Series)
Romero v. State
Opinion of the Court
We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s motion for postconviction relief. The record conclusively refutes appellant’s claim that she pleaded unaware that she would be deported.
During the plea colloquy, the following transpired:
COURT: Are you a United States citizen?
THE DEFENDANT: No.
COURT: Do you understand that this plea will subject you to deportation?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
COURT: Knowing that, do you still want to plead.
THE DEFENDANT: No contest.
COURT: My question is, knowing that by pleading you are going to be deported do you still want to plead?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
Appellant was clearly aware that her plea in this case would result in her deportation. The Padilla claim is without merit.
Affirmed.
. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.