STATE V. MORALES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2003 THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. ** ** CASE NO. 3D02-3246 ** JULIO A. MORALES, Appellee. ** ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 89-2962 Opinion filed November 5, 2003. An appeal from the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Manuel A. Crespo, Judge. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and John D. Barker, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. Ernesto S. Medina, for appellee. Before LEVY, GREEN, and FLETCHER, JJ. FLETCHER, Judge. The State of Florida seeks to reverse an order vacating the judgment of conviction and sentence of Julio A. Morales. We reverse. In February of 1989, Morales pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine. Morales subsequently moved to withdraw his plea and to vacate the conviction, but because he was not under present threat of deportation, the motion was withdrawn. Morales then voluntarily advised the INS that he was amenable to deportation. The INS issued a Notice to Appear [NTA], after which Morales renewed his motion to withdraw plea and vacate conviction, now that he was presently under threat of deportation. At the evidentiary hearing on Morales renewed motion, the court heard testimony of Robert Sheldon, an immigration law specialist who indicated that the NTA provided two grounds for Morales s deportation - the guilty plea and his undocumented status. Sheldon testified that, of those two grounds, was the guilty plea the only viable reason for deportation, as Morales undocumented status could be remedied under the Cuban Adjustment Act. At the hearing s conclusion the trial court granted Morales motion to vacate his conviction and sentence. The record reflects that Morales applied for permanent residency which was denied because of the 1989 conviction. It is evident from testimony that Morales, a Cuban national, was not in fact amenable to deportation but was attempting to obtain permanent resident status by using the NTA as a means to obtain a favorable ruling on his motion to vacate his conviction. Testimony indicated it is highly speculative as to whether the INS would have actually instituted an action against Morales had he not requested such proceedings himself. Volunteering 2 for deportation does not establish the requisite prejudice (from failure to advise of the immigration consequences of one s plea) and threat deportation necessary to trigger Peart and its progeny. v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2000). of See Peart In this case the prejudice and threat was created by Morales and does not stem from the circumstances surrounding his prior plea. Reversed and remanded. 3
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.
