STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT TAYLOR, 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 court held that a petition for writ of error coram nobis is barred by laches when filed more than two years after the conviction and sentence became final, absent specific exceptions.
[1] A petition for writ of error coram nobis seeking relief from a conviction and sentence is presumed to be barred by laches if filed more than two years after the convictio…
[2] Laches may bar a petition for writ of error coram nobis solely by virtue of failing to satisfy the two-year time limit, even in the absence of prejudice to the opposing p…
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 intelligenceAppellee filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis more than two years after being placed on probation, challenging the adequacy of the trial cou…
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.
We reverse an order granting Appellee’s petition for writ of error eoram nobis. The relief sought, filed more than two years after Appellee was placed on probation in May 1994, is barred by laches. The probation terminated in August, 1995.
Appellee sought relief challenging the adequacy of the trial court warning as to the potential deportation consequences of his plea. Appellee pursues relief by way of this petition because it is the only viable basis for doing so, since he is not in custody, he is not authorized to seek post-conviction relief under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 3.850. Wood v. State, 698 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), rev. granted, 705 So. 2d 571 (Fla.1998).
This court has recently applied laches to bar a coram nobis petition in Gregersen v. State, 714 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). There, however, the basis for the laches was the more familiar circumstance involving prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of the lengthy passage of time. Here, laches arises solely by virtue of failing to satisfy the two year time limit under rule 3.850(b). The First and Second Districts have recognized that coram nobis petitions filed more than two years after the conviction and sentence have become final are presumed to be barred by laches, subject to the exceptions recognized under the rule. Wood; Vonia v. State, 680 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 672 So. 2d 544 (Fla.1996).
We also reject Appellee’s argument that his conviction did not become final for these purposes until the date his probation terminated. We need not address whether the plea colloquy in this case was sufficient, or the related issues now before the supreme court in Wood and Peart v. State, 705 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), rev. granted, 722 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1998), as those issues are now moot. However, as Appellee had no opportunity in the trial court to address whether he could meet the “new facts” exception under rule 3.850(b), he should be afforded the opportunity, if requested on remand, to do so.
STONE, C.J., SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bartz v. State, 740 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…tz would not have been authorized to seek postconviction relief through a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence, because Bartz’s prison sentence in Florida has long since been served and he is not in State custody. See State v. Taylor, 722 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Moreover, such a motion would be time-barred under Rule 3.850. Prior to the recent Florida Supreme Court case Wood v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly S240, - So. 2d -, 1999 WL 334750 (Fla. May 27, 1999), the appropriate avenue of relie…
-
Gusow v. State, 6 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…0), 460 So. 2d 907 (Fla.1984) (creating for the first time the two-year time limitation on postconviction claims). A motion filed outside the time limit is barred by laches as a matter of law unless one of the exceptions is met. See State v. Taylor, 722 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); see also McCray v. State, 699 So. 2d 1366, 1368 (Fla.1997). As the Florida Supreme Court held in State v. Green, 944 So. 2d 208 (Fla.2006), and reaffirmed in Ey, a movant can discover an attorney’s misadvice about the law. The p…
-
Gino Kalici v. State, 755 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…f error coram nobis are time barred by laches if filed more than two years after judgment and sentence have become final. See State v. Elise, 727 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Gabriel v. State, 723 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); State v. Taylor, 722 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The Florida Supreme Court recently agreed with this position when it held the two-year' time limit contained in rule 3.850 applies to petitions for writs of error coram nobis. See Wood, 750 So. 2d 593. However, the court also st…
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
- Roan Peart v. State, 705 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Knafel v. State, 714 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Wood v. State, 698 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Gino B. Vonia v. State, 680 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)