Glinton v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT FRANKLYN GLINTON, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2D03-230 Opinion filed July 18, 2003. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Robert B. Bennett, Jr., Judge. FULMER, Judge. Franklyn Glinton appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, Glinton alleged that his nolo contendere plea to robbery was involuntary because he was not informed of the deportation consequences of the conviction. His claim is facially insufficient because he has not affirmatively alleged nor demonstrated that he is threatened with deportation as a result of the robbery conviction. See Mendez v. State, 805 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Bellevue v. State, 794 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Therefore, we affirm without prejudice to whatever right Glinton may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion if he can establish that his robbery conviction has resulted in a threat of deportation. Any such motion filed within sixty days of the issuance of this mandate shall be deemed timely filed and shall not be denied as successive. Affirmed. STRINGER and CANADY, JJ., Concur. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.