Supreme Court of Florida, 2000

Rodriguez v. State

Rodriguez v. State
Supreme Court of Florida · Decided September 7, 2000 · Anstead, Harding, Lewis, Pariente, Quince, Shaw, Wells
767 So. 2d 1169; 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 679; 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1759; 2000 WL 1260241 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Rodriguez v. State

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Rodriguez v. State, 742 So.2d 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), which is a per curiam decision without opinion citing only to Peart v. State, 705 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), quashed, 756 So.2d 42 (Fla. 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418, 420 (Fla. 1981).

This Court recently held in Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42 (Fla. 2000), that a defendant may seek postconviction relief based on a claim that he or she was not advised of the immigration consequences of a plea. We emphasize that all such claims filed subsequent to our decision in Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla. 1999), must be filed pursuant to a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Peart, 756 So.2d at 45. Rodriguez is quashed as being inconsistent with our decision in Peart.

It is so ordered.

*1170SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur. WELLS, C.J., and HARDING and QUINCE, JJ., dissent.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.