Case Name: Raul Suarez RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-03-14
Citations: 778 So. 2d 1099
Docket Number: No. 3D00-2266
Parties: Raul Suarez RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before GERSTEN, FLETCHER, and RAMIREZ, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 778
Pages: 1099–1099

Head Matter:
Raul Suarez RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D00-2266.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
March 14, 2001.
Neil M. Schuster, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and M. Rebecca Springer, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before GERSTEN, FLETCHER, and RAMIREZ, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Appellant Raul Suarez Ramirez complains that the trial court failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his 1986 plea under rule 3.172(c)(8), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm because Ramirez has never alleged that he was threatened with deportation, only that if he had known the repercussions, he would not have entered the plea. See Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42, 46 (Fla.2000) ("in order for a defendant to establish a prima facie case for relief, the defendant must be threatened with deportation resulting from the plea."); Perez v. Moore, 767 So.2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.2000) ("[b]ecause petitioner has not expressly alleged that he is threatened with deportation pursuant to his plea, he has failed to establish a basis for relief under Peart").
. We note that such a requirement was not made effective until January 1, 1989. See In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 536 So.2d 992, 992-94 (Fla.1988).