02-0715 SAINT-FLEUR V. STATE

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2002 » 02-0715 SAINT-FLEUR V. STATE

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 02-0715 SAINT-FLEUR V. STATE

Case Date: 12/04/2002

Preview: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. 2002

JEAN BERTON SAINT-FLEUR, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

** ** ** ** CASE NO. 3D02-715 LOWER TRIBUNAL NOS. 91-21423 ** 91-15036

Opinion filed December 4, 2002. An appeal under Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Leonard Glick, Judge. Paul J. Kneski, for appellant. Richard E. Doran, Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Barbara A. Zappi,

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and GODERICH, JJ.

COPE, J. Jean Berton Saint-Fleur appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal

Procedure 3.850.

The trial court declined to grant relief under We affirm and

Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2000). certify a question.

Defendant-appellant Saint-Fleur entered into a plea bargain in 1992 in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court case numbers 91-21423 and 91-25036. He received consecutive life sentences.1

The defendant states that during the plea colloquy, the trial court failed to warn him that deportation could result from his plea. The court reporter's notes of the plea colloquy

have apparently been destroyed, so no transcript of the plea is available. defendant's For present purposes he was we accept as true about the the

assertion

that

not

warned

immigration consequences of his plea. The defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief in 2001, asserting that the Immigration Court entered an order dated January 3, 2000, which orders the defendant to be deported to France or Haiti. deportation order was The documentation indicates that this based on the convictions entered in

circuit court case numbers 91-21423 and 91-25036. The trial court denied relief, stating:

1

The defendant states that the agreement was for consecutive life sentences in the event that he failed to return from a furlough which the court granted, but if he returned, then the sentence would be for a term of years. 2

The defendant has failed to establish a prima facie case under Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2000) that he has been prejudiced by any failure to advise him of his immigration consequences. The defendant is serving a life sentence and there is no evidence that he is eligible for parole. By subsequent order the court clarified that the ruling was "without prejudice to the Defendant to again seek Postconviction Relief only in the event he is ever paroled." follows. We agree with the trial court. plea to crimes committed in 1991. the sentencing guidelines. Under the guidelines, a life sentence is for a term of natural life without the possibility of parole. See

Download 02-0715 SAINT-FLEUR V. STATE.pdf