Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2013

Romero v. State

Romero v. State
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided February 13, 2013 · Conner, Gerber
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

PER CURIAM.

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.1

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.

MAY, C.J., GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

. 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.