ROBERT EARL WOOD, 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.
Robert Earl Wood appealed a trial court's denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis filed beyond the two-year time period under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the two-year limitation applies to error coram nobis petitions to prevent circumvention of the rule, and certified conflict with Malcolm v. State.
A petition for writ of error coram nobis must satisfy the two-year limitation of rule 3.850. The two-year limitation applies to prevent circumvention of the rule, and the only continuing application for the writ is in situations where a petitioner would have a viable claim under rule 3.850 but for the 'in custody' requirement.
[1] A petition for a writ of error coram nobis must satisfy the two-year limitation period applicable to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
[2] A petition for a writ of error coram nobis is subject to the two-year time limitation, even when the petitioner is not in custody.
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“In light of the supreme court's decision in Richardson v. State, 546 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1989), virtually all claims formally cognizable by petition for writ of error coram nobis may now be presented only under rule 3.850 which contains a requirement that the motion be filed within two years after the judgment and sentence become final.”
Establishes that rule 3.850's two-year limitation is the primary mechanism for post-conviction relief, superseding error coram nobis.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1996, Wood filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis challenging two 1988 convictions. He apparently sought this extraordinary writ rather tha…
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
ALLEN, Judge.
The appellant challenges an order by which the trial court denied his petition for a writ of error coram nobis because it was filed beyond the two-year time period specified in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the order, but we certify conflict with Malcolm v. State, 605 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA1992).
In 1996, the appellant filed a petition for a writ of error eoram nobis in which he challenged two 1988 convictions. The appellant apparently sought a writ of error coram no-bis rather than relief under rule 3.850 because he had completed his sentence for the 1988 convictions and was no longer “in custody” as required for relief under the rule. Because the petition was filed more than two years after the 1988 convictions became final, the trial court denied the petition as untimely-
In light of the supreme court’s decision in Richardson v. State, 546 So. 2d 1037 (Fla.1989), virtually all claims formally cognizable by petition for writ of error coram nobis may now be presented only under rule 3.850 which contains a requirement that the motion be filed within two years after the judgment and sentence become final. The only apparent continuing application for the writ of error coram nobis is in the situation where the petitioner would have a viable claim under rule 3.850 but for the “in custody” requirement. A petition for a writ of error coram nobis therefore must satisfy the two-year limitation of rule 3.850. If the two-year limitation were not applied to petitions for writs of error eoram nobis, they could be used to circumvent, the rule. By analogy, the case law precludes resort to a petition for writ of habeas corpus to pursue the time-barred claims of persons who are in custody. See, e.g., Patterson v. State, 664 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Robbins v. State, 564 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
Because the appellant’s petition in the present case was filed beyond the two-year time limitation, it was properly denied as untimely. See Vonia v. State, 680 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
We recognize that the court in Malcolm expressly held that a petition for writ of error coram nobis is not subject to the two-year time limitation. We therefore certify conflict with Malcolm.
AFFIRMED.
WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1999)…SHAW, J. We have for review Wood v. State, 698 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), wherein the district court certified conflict with Malcolm v. State, 605 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We quash the Wood decision, although we approve of the reasoning contai…
-
Roan Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2000)…PER CURIAM. We have for review the decision in Peart v. State, 705 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), wherein the district court certified conflict with Marriott v. State, 605 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), and Wood v. State, 698 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), quashed, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1999). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We quash Peart and approve Marriott. The Peart opinion below is actually five cases that the Third District Court of Appeal consolidat…
-
Roan Peart v. State, 705 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…dvertent failures to so advise, so that this may be corrected immediately. Based on the foregoing reasoning, we recede from Beckles, and its progeny and certify conflict with Marriott v. State, 605 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), and Wood v. State, 698 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), review granted, 705 So. 2d 571 (Fla.1998). We affirm the denial of relief in Peart, Jimenez, and Ross, reverse the order granting coram nobis in Evans, and reverse the order in Prieto denying the post-conviction relief motion wi…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 546 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1989)
- Vernal Earle Malcolm v. State, 605 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Patterson v. State, 664 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Gino B. Vonia v. State, 680 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Robbins v. State of Fla. & Richard Dugger, 564 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)