Case ID: so3d_158/html/0754-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ALTENBERND, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pedro BACILIO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 2D14-3811.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Feb. 25, 2015.
    
      Jack 0. Solano, Miami, for Appellant.
   ALTENBERND, Judge.

Pedro Bacilio appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion that was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand to give Mr. Bacilio an opportunity to amend his motion.

In his short motion filed by his postcon-viction attorney in April 2018, Mr. Bacilio alleges that he was arrested in 2011 for two counts of battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest without violence. He claims his attorney was ineffective at the time of his plea in October 2011 because the attorney did not give him adequate advice concerning his deportation risks as required by Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010).

The postconviction court directed the State to respond to the motion. The State argued both that the motion was conclusively refuted by the record and that it was facially insufficient, citing to this court’s decision in Balcazar v. State, 116 So.3d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). The post-conviction court denied the motion, without leave, to amend, claiming that it was conclusively refuted by the warnings about deportation in the plea form and at the plea hearing.

There is no question that the motion was facially deficient under the guidelines established by this court in Balcazar. We established those guidelines after Mr. Bac-ilio filed his motion. In Balcazar, we reversed in part and remanded to allow the defendant an opportunity to amend his motion. Id. at 576. We conclude that the same relief is warranted in this case. Even if we could predict what Mr. Bacilio might allege in a facially sufficient motion concerning the advice given to him by his lawyer and his reliance on that advice, we do not believe that those future allegations can be conclusively refuted at this time by the standard language in the plea form and the typical judicial colloquy at the plea hearing.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand, instructing the trial court to strike the motion with leave to amend.

KHOUZAM and SLEET, JJ„ Concur.