The state’s response essentially conceded that this case fell under the exception to the two-year time limitation found at Rule 3.850(b)(1), which applies when “the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or the movant’s attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence,” but asserted that the motion should be denied on the merits. Before accepting a guilty or nolo conten-dré plea, the trial court is required to determine that the plea is voluntarily entered. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.172(a). Ordinarily, the trial court should place the defendant under oath and determine that the defendant unde e Jimmy Ryce Act on appellant are collateral consequences of the plea. See People v. Moore, 69 Cal.App.4th 626, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 658 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Florida courts have come to this conclusion
holding any commitment defendant might suffer under the sexual violent predator act would not be a direct consequence of his plea holding that the possibility that a sex offender could face civil commitment under a state statute was a collateral consequence because civil commitment does not flow automatically from the plea holding that the sanction of deportation is a collateral not direct consequence of a guilty plea holding that potential civil commitment under a state statute was a collateral consequence of pleading guilty holding that enhancement of sentence after violation of probation was collateral rather than direct consequence of plea