THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
IRVING BRICK, APPELLEE
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.
The State appeals a trial court's decision to grant Irving Brick's writ of error coram nobis, which set aside his 1974 guilty plea to issuing worthless checks. The court reverses, holding that Brick cannot use coram nobis relief because the underlying fact—that he had informed the payee of insufficient funds—was known to him at the time of his plea, not newly discovered.
Brick is not entitled to coram nobis relief because the underlying fact was not newly discovered; Brick knew at the time of his guilty plea that he had informed the payee of his insufficient funds. Only newly discovered facts, not newly discovered legal significance of known facts, warrant coram nobis relief.
[1] A writ of error coram nobis is unavailable when the factual basis for the petition was known to the petitioner at the time of trial or plea.
[2] The fact, not its legal significance, must be newly discovered to entitle a petitioner to coram nobis relief.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“it is apodictic that the fact upon which a petition for writ of error coram nobis is based must be newly discovered and thus must not have been known by the petitioner at the time of trial — or here, at the time of his plea of guilty — relief by way of coram nobis will not lie”
Establishes the fundamental requirement for coram nobis relief that the underlying fact must be newly discovered and unknown at the time of the original proceeding
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1974, Irving Brick pleaded guilty to five counts of issuing worthless checks to Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., and the court withheld adjudication. Eleve…
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 Issuing Worthless Checks cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
The State appeals the trial court’s Order Granting Writ of Error Coram Nobis and setting aside a 1974 order withholding adjudication on Brick’s guilty plea to five counts of issuing worthless checks. We reverse.
It affirmatively appears on the face of Brick’s petition for writ of error coram nobis that the fact upon which the petition is based — that is, that before issuing the worthless checks Brick had informed the payee1 that he did not have on deposit sufficient funds to insure payment of them — was quite obviously known to Brick at the moment he allegedly told the payee of his fiscal inadequacy and, of course, in 1974 when he entered his guilty plea. Since it is apodictic that the fact upon which a petition for writ of error coram nobis is based must be newly discovered and thus must not have been known by the petitioner at the time of trial — or here, at the time of his plea of guilty — relief by way of coram nobis will not lie. See Smith v. State, 400 So. 2d 956 (Fla.1981); Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1979); Tafero v. State, 406 So. 2d 89 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). That neither Brick, nor his counsel (who, according to Brick, was told by Brick of his conversation with the payee), discovered the legal significance of Brick’s alleged disclosure to the payee 2 until eleven years after the plea of guilty is of no moment: it is the fact, not its legal significance, which must be newly discovered to entitle one to coram nobis relief.
Reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the March 14, 1974, Order Withholding Adjudication.3
. Each of the five checks was issued to Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. . Under Section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes (1973), where the payee of a check, draft, or other order "knows or has been expressly notified or has reason to believe that the drawer did not have on deposit or to his credit with the drawee sufficient funds to insure payment thereof,” there is no crime.
.Our disposition makes it unnecessary to address the State’s further claim that Brick’s petition should have been barred by laches. See, e.g., Blatch v. State, 389 So. 2d 669 (Fla.3d DCA 1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Resta v. State, 698 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ng the plea colloquy. Bermudez v. State, 603 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 613 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1992); Ross v. State, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1073, — So. 2d -, 1997 WL 209689 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 30, 1997); Simmons, 611 So. 2d at 1250; State v. Brick, 490 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Affirmed. . THE COURT: And are you a citizen of the United States? [RESTA]: No, I’m not. THE COURT: I need to explain to you that you could be subjected to deportation by entering this plea; do you understand that? [RESTA]:…
-
Mattos v. State, 560 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…conviction on a writ of cor-am nobis where the facts upon which the petition is based were known to the petitioner when the judgment was entered. Smith v. State, 400 So. 2d 956 (Fla.1981); Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1979); State v. Brick, 490 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 496 So. 2d 142 (Fla.1986). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1979)
- Smith v. State, 400 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1981)
- Blatch v. State, 389 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Tafero v. State, 406 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)