THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WENCESLAO GARCIA, 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 of Florida appealed the trial court's granting of a writ of error coram nobis that set aside Garcia's 1975 guilty plea convictions for burglary and grand larceny. The appellate court reversed, holding that error coram nobis is limited to correcting vital facts, not legal errors, and that Garcia's allegations did not meet the stringent requirements for this extraordinary remedy.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's granting of the writ of error coram nobis, holding that the petition failed to meet the requirements for this extraordinary remedy because it alleged legal errors rather than vital facts of fact, and the facts alleged would not have prevented entry of the judgment had they been known.
[1] A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinary writ used to correct errors of fact, not errors of law.
[2] For a writ of error coram nobis to be granted, the alleged facts must be of such a vital nature that, had they been known to the trial court, they conclusively would have…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 function of a writ of error coram nobis is to correct errors of fact, not errors of law.”
Establishes the fundamental limitation on the scope of error coram nobis relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGarcia was arrested in 1975, charged with burglary of a dwelling and grand larceny, and pleaded guilty after a proper plea colloquy in which he was ad…
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 Knowing And Intelligent Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
GERSTEN, Judge.
Appellant, State of Florida, appeals the granting of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis setting aside adjudications of guilt. We reverse.
Appellee, Wenceslao Garcia, was arrested in 1975 and charged with burglary of a dwelling and grand larceny. Appellee pleaded guilty and was sentenced to eighteen months probation. During the plea colloquy, the court advised appellee of his rights, inquired as to whether appellee understood those rights, and asked appellee’s attorney if the plea was in the best interest of appellee.
The trial court then accepted the pleas of guilty on each of the two counts, entered findings of guilt, and adjudicated appellee guilty. The trial court entered written judgments of guilt for each offense.
In 1989, appellee was again arrested. Based on the prior adjudications, appellee was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
In 1990, fourteen years after the original convictions, appellee filed a petition of error coram nobis alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel, violation of the plea agreement, and failure of the trial court to inform appellee of his rights prior to accepting his plea.
At the hearing on appellee’s petition, appellee argued that his plea had not been knowingly and intelligently made because he was not aware of the consequences of his plea. The trial court granted appellee’s petition, set aside the adjudication of guilt, and granted a withhold of adjudication nunc pro tunc effective the date of the original sentence in 1976.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in granting the petition for writ of error coram nobis because the facts in the petition were insufficient to warrant relief, Appellant also contends that relief was precluded by the doctrine of laches and because the plea colloquy was proper and established that appellee knowingly and voluntarily entered into his guilty plea. The function of a writ of error coram nobis is to correct errors of fact, not errors of law. Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1979); Leavitt v. State, 116 Fla. 738, 156 So. 904 (1934); Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396, 107 So. 535 (1926).
The alleged facts must be of such a vital nature that, had they been known to the trial court, they conclusively would have prevented the entry of the judgment. Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d at 485; Williams v. Yelvington, 103 Fla. 145, 137 So. 156 (1931); Lamb v. State, 107 So. at 538.
The allegations in the petition for the writ fail to meet these requirements because they show no error of fact, and would not have prevented the entry of the judgment. The petition, therefore, does not justify relief by way of the extraordinary writ of error coram nobis.
A further requirement is that neither the defendant, nor his counsel could have known of, or ascertained, the alleged facts which form the basis of the petition, by the exercise of due diligence. Lamb v. State, 107 So. at 538.
In this case, appellee and his attorney were present when the judge twice stated the entry of adjudication. Both appellee and his attorney were present when the trial court entered written judgments of guilt. No objection to the adjudication was made until the filing of this petition fourteen years later. Finding that a writ of coram nobis is an inappropriate remedy, we need not address appellant’s other contention. We, therefore, reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roan Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2000)…that the defendants do not seek coram nobis relief asserting errors of fact or newly discovered evidence, but rather on the basis of an error of law, to wit, an irregularity in their plea colloquy rendering their pleas involuntary. State v. Garcia, 571 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Moreover, these petitions do not assert claims “of such a vital nature that had they been known to the trial court, they conclusively would have prevented the entry of the judgment.” Hallman, 371 So. 2d at 485. Coram nobis relief…1 / 2
-
Roan Peart v. State, 705 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…ases, the defendants do not seek coram nobis relief asserting errors of fact or newly discovered evidence, but rather on the basis of an error of law, to wit, an irregularity in their plea colloquy rendering their pleas involuntary. State v. Garcia, 571 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Moreover, these petitions for relief do not assert claims “of such a vital nature that had they been known to the trial court, they conclusively would have prevented the entry of the judgment.” Hallman, 371 So. 2d at 485. Coram n…
-
Fonda v. State, 622 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. Certiorari denied. See Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla.1991); Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1979); State v. Garcia, 571 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1979)
- Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396 (Fla. 1926)
- Jules Leavitt v. State, 116 Fla. 738 (Fla. 1934)
- Williams v. Yelvington, 103 Fla. 145 (Fla. 1931)