Tweet
For many years now all courts have been giving at least the "may be removed" advisal. Starting around 2000 or so, most courts started giving a two part advisal - the standard "may be removed" and then they would list, on an entire page, all the aggravated felonies and add an additional advisal to the effect that removal was mandatory for anyone pleading to one of those.
You are a smart cookie thinking about trying to vacate for PC ยง 1016.5 (that is a CA statute by the way, not FL).
California Penal Code Section 1016.5 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws
That statute is not new whatsoever - been around a very long time in California. In your case, I believe you will find that the complete advisal has been made - at least CA courts do not miss much. At a minimum you will find that they made the "may be removed" advisal - CA courts have been doing that for all felonies for at least 25 years, if not more.
Now if you do find that they did not give him the "mandatory removal" spiel, yes, you could try to vacate the conviction on those grounds. Not using that statute, but a writ of error coram nobis (see here)
212(c) waivers - Free EBAY, PayPal, Business and Law Forums - Ebay Suspension, PayPal Limited
or the equivalent to the 1016.5 statute, in FL. BUT with a case so new, vacating would not get rid of the conviction. It would just set the clock back to before he made his plea. The DA could then re-prosecute him for the same offense, and maybe his plea was the best he could do given the facts.
When someone vacates a conviction that is petty, or very old, the DA just drops the whole thing. But with serious offenses or newer ones, they usually just pick it back up and file again. With this type of offense, the DA will never agree to dismiss following the vacatur - too politically charged - so he may end up in a worse position providing he succeeds in the first place.
You are a smart cookie thinking about trying to vacate for PC ยง 1016.5 (that is a CA statute by the way, not FL).
California Penal Code Section 1016.5 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws
That statute is not new whatsoever - been around a very long time in California. In your case, I believe you will find that the complete advisal has been made - at least CA courts do not miss much. At a minimum you will find that they made the "may be removed" advisal - CA courts have been doing that for all felonies for at least 25 years, if not more.
Now if you do find that they did not give him the "mandatory removal" spiel, yes, you could try to vacate the conviction on those grounds. Not using that statute, but a writ of error coram nobis (see here)
212(c) waivers - Free EBAY, PayPal, Business and Law Forums - Ebay Suspension, PayPal Limited
or the equivalent to the 1016.5 statute, in FL. BUT with a case so new, vacating would not get rid of the conviction. It would just set the clock back to before he made his plea. The DA could then re-prosecute him for the same offense, and maybe his plea was the best he could do given the facts.
When someone vacates a conviction that is petty, or very old, the DA just drops the whole thing. But with serious offenses or newer ones, they usually just pick it back up and file again. With this type of offense, the DA will never agree to dismiss following the vacatur - too politically charged - so he may end up in a worse position providing he succeeds in the first place.