GARY LEWIS SACCUCCI, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Saccucci appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief seeking to vacate a 1971 conviction for 'crimes against nature' under an unconstitutional statute, arguing the conviction now affects his parole eligibility on a subsequent conviction. The court affirms the denial, holding that the motion is barred by the two-year statute of limitations and that coram nobis is not an appropriate remedy, but notes potential alternative remedies may be available.
The court held that the motion is barred by the two-year limitation period in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, that coram nobis is not an appropriate remedy under these circumstances, and that Saccucci's unanticipated legal problems do not fall within recognized exceptions to the limitation period. However, the court left open the possibility of other remedies such as administrative appeals or habeas corpus.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief under Rule 3.850 is barred by the two-year limitations period unless a recognized exception applies.
[2] A writ of error coram nobis is not an appropriate remedy to correct errors of law.
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 statute under which he was charged, section 800.01, Florida Statutes (1971), was declared unconstitutional a few months after the judgment and sentence in his case”
Establishes that Saccucci's conviction was based on an unconstitutional statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn February 1971, Mr. Saccucci was convicted of crimes against nature under section 800.01, Florida Statutes, and pleaded guilty without appeal. The s…
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 Collateral Consequences Of Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1155] PER CURIAM.
Mr. Saccucci appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief and petition for writ of error coram nobis. We affirm without prejudice to any other remedies which Mr. Saccucci may pursue.
Mr. Saccucci seeks to vacate a February 1971 conviction for “crimes against nature.” The statute under which he was charged, section 800.01, Florida Statutes (1971), was declared unconstitutional a few months after the judgment and sentence in his case. Franklin v. State, 257 So. 2d 21 (Fla.1971). Mr. Saccucci pled guilty and did not appeal his conviction.
In 1986 Mr. Saccucci returned to prison for two counts of DUI manslaughter. The prior conviction assumed an unanticipated significance as a result of these new convictions. Mr. Saccucci has calculated that the effect of this ancient “sex offense” has extended his presumptive parole release date from February 1992 to October 1994.1
The state correctly responds that the motion is barred by the two-year limitations period now included within Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and that coram nobis is not an appropriate remedy under the circumstances of this case.2 Although there are exceptions to the two-year limitation, Mr. Saccucci’s unanticipated legal problems do not fall within any recognized exception.
It is possible that Mr. Saccucci has some remedy to eliminate the continuing collateral consequences of an invalid conviction, if the allegations in his motion are correct. In its present posture, the dispute does not concern, per se, the validity of Mr. Saccucci’s 1971 conviction so much as the detrimental reliance upon that conviction allegedly occurring at his current place of confinement. There may be administrative remedies available to Mr. Saccucci. See Morris v. Wainwright, 409 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Cole v. Dugger, 543 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Alternatively, habeas corpus in the jurisdiction where he is incarcerated might provide a remedy.3 We hold only that the trial court was correct in refusing to address Mr. Saccucci’s particular grievance via rule 3.850 or cor-am nobis.
Affirmed.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur. .Mr. Saccucci’s reference to "parole” is confusing. Under the applicable sentencing guidelines, his new convictions should not be subject to parole. § 921.001(10), Fla.Stat. (1987). We assume from his arguments that Mr. Saccucci is actually concerned with a loss of "provisional credits” for gain time because he has been classified as a "sex offender.” § 944.277(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (1988 Supp.) Alternatively, it is possible that Mr. Saccucci’s 1986 sentence concerns a violation of an earlier probationary sentence and that his reference to parole is correct.
. See Leavitt v. State, 116 Fla. 738, 156 So. 904 (1934) (coram nobis exists to correct errors of fact, not errors of law).
. We are not holding that habeas corpus does provide a remedy. The scope of this writ has been altered by the addition of rule 3.850. Earlier case law which has not been expressly overruled at least suggests a possible remedy. Bronk v. State, 43 Fla. 461, 31 So. 248 (1901); State ex rel. Smith v. Cochrane, 112 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ayres v. State, 708 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…HARRIS, Judge, concurring specially. I concur in granting relief to Lloyd Ayres but would hesitate to hold his motion timely under rule 3.850. See Saccucci v. State, 546 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Because Ayres is not guilty of any valid offense, any sentence that .he received would be void. The supreme court’s determination that the statute under which Ayres was convicted is unconstitutional renders the statute inoperativ…
-
McINTYRE v. State, 559 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…l Procedure; and appellant’s claims do not fall within either of the two exceptions to application of the time limit set forth in that rule. Johnson v. State, 536 So. 2d 1009 (Fla.1989); Delap v. State, 513 So. 2d 1050 (Fla.1987); Saccucci v. State, 546 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA [*389] 1989); see Whiddon v. Dugger, 894 F. 2d 1266 (11th Cir.1990). Affirmed.…
-
White v. State, 625 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Agan v. State, 560 So. 2d 222 (Fla.1990); Saccucci v. State, 546 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Williams v. State, 539 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).…
Authorities Cited
- Alva Gene Franklin v. State, 257 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1971)
- Ex parte Bronk v. State, 43 Fla. 461 (Fla. 1901)
- Jules Leavitt v. State, 116 Fla. 738 (Fla. 1934)
- Mapp v. Armco Specialty Steel Div. & Cigna, 543 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Millard Whitfield v. State, 409 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Wallace Smith v. Cochrane, 112 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Morris v. Louie L. Wainwright, 409 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)