Case ID: so3d_104/html/0389-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rover RABANAL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D12-3153.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Jan. 2, 2013.
    Claudia Del Castillo-Hronsky, for appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.
    Before WELLS, C.J., and LAGOA and EMAS, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. Green, 944 So.2d 208, 217-18 (Fla.2006) (expressly receding from its prior holding in Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42 (Fla.2000) and holding a defendant seeking to withdraw a plea due to the trial court’s failure to advise him of deportation consequences must file a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.850 within two years after the judgment and sentence become final and a “defendant filing outside the two-year limitation period must allege and prove that he or she could not have ascertained the immigration consequences of the plea with the exercise of due diligence within the two-year period”) 
      
      . In Peart, which is no longer good law in Florida, the court had held the limitations period, for motions claiming a violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8), begins to run when the defendant knew or should have known of the threat of deportation.