WILLIE A. BROWN, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; LARRY TROY, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Two death-row inmates, Brown and Troy, sought to file writs of error coram nobis in the trial court while appeals of their murder convictions were pending before the Florida Supreme Court. The Court held that because their convictions had not yet become judgments of the appellate court, they could proceed with coram nobis petitions in the trial court, and the Court temporarily relinquished jurisdiction to allow these proceedings.
The Court held that because the judgment of conviction had not yet become the judgment of the appellate court, permission from the Supreme Court was not required. However, to avoid jurisdictional questions about the trial court's authority while an appeal is pending, the Court would temporarily relinquish jurisdiction to allow the coram nobis petitions to proceed in the trial court.
[1] A writ of error coram nobis is used to seek relief from errors of fact that, if known, would have prevented the entry of the judgment.
[2] The writ of error coram nobis is addressed to the court that rendered the judgment in which injustice is alleged.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The office of "writ of coram nobis" is to bring the attention of a court to, and obtain relief from, errors of fact (such as a valid defense existing in facts of case) which, if known, would have prevented entry of the judgment questioned.”
Defines the purpose and scope of a coram nobis petition as a remedy for factual errors that would have prevented judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWillie A. Brown and Larry Troy were both convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Both filed appeals to the Florida Supreme Court, but…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Error Coram Nobis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Brown and Troy request leave to file petitions for writ of error coram nobis with the trial court. Both were convicted of first-degree murder and both sentenced to death. Both have appealed, but at the time these requests were filed the merits of their appeals had not been presented to this Court, and we have not ruled upon them. We have stayed the appellate proceedings pending action on the instant requests.
Coram nobis means "In our presence; before us.” The office of “writ of coram nobis” is to bring the attention of a court to, and obtain relief from, errors of fact (such as a valid defense existing in facts of case) which, if known, would have prevented entry of the judgment questioned. The essence of coram nobis is that it is addressed to the very court which renders the judgment in which the injustice is alleged to have been done, in contrast to appeals or review directed to another court; the words “coram nobis,” meaning “our court,” as compared to the common-law writ of “coram vobis,” meaning “your court,” clearly point this up. Black’s Law Dictionary 304-05 (5th ed. 1979).
In Russ v. State, 95 So. 2d 594 (Fla.1957), a petition for permission to apply to the trial court for writ of error coram nobis had been filed in this Court. We found this to be “the proper procedure after an appellate court has affirmed a conviction sought to be disturbed.” Id. at 597 citing Chambers v. State, 117 Fla. 642, 158 So. 153 (1934) (emphasis supplied). This rule is inapplicable in the instant situation, however, because the judgment of conviction has not as yet become the judgment of this Court. Permission to file a coram nobis petition from this Court, therefore, is not needed. However, to avoid any question of whether the trial court has jurisdiction to entertain such a petition because an appeal is pending, we temporarily relinquish any jurisdiction obtained because of the filing of the appeal to allow these petitions to be presented to the trial court.*
Accordingly, we temporarily stay the appellate proceedings and relinquish jurisdiction for the limited purpose of allowing Brown and Troy to file an application for coram nobis relief before the trial court. Upon the completion of these ancillary proceedings the appeal will then go forward if necessary.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., concurs in result only.
*
The effectual difference in granting permission to file a petition, as existed in Russ and Chambers and relinquishing jurisdiction of a pending appeal as we are doing in this case, is that in the former we pass upon the sufficiency of the allegations to grant relief if the factual contentions are proved, while in the latter and instant petition we do not judge the legal sufficiency thereof.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 515 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1987)…rt imposed the recommended sentence after finding four aggravating circumstances and nothing in mitigation. Brown and Troy filed petitions for coram nobis relief with the trial court, alleging jury misconduct during deliberation. See Brown v. State, 485 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1986). The trial court took evidence, found the allegations unsubstantiated, and discharged the petition. Brown and Troy argue that the allegedly overlong period of time between their administrative confinement and trial violated their speedy…
-
Distefano v. State, 526 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…on inquiry; i.e., the judge must conduct a hearing at which the state attorney has the burden of proving that the defendant was not prejudiced by the error. Richardson v. State, supra; Wilcox v. State, 367 So. 2d 1020 (Fla.1979); and Brown v. State, 485 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1986). A Richardson inquiry is designed to ferret out procedural prejudice resulting from the prosecutor’s noncompliance with the discovery rules. The trial judge must first decide whether the discovery violation prevented the defendant from pr…
Authorities Cited
- Russ v. State, 95 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1957)
- Isiah (Izell) Chambers v. State, 117 Fla. 642 (Fla. 1934)