DANTE RUBIO, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Error Coram Nobis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Rubio v. State, 706 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), which is a per curiam decision citing only to Peart v. State, 705 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981).
This Court-recently held in Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla.2000), that a petition for writ of error coram nobis was the proper vehicle for raising a claim that a noncustodial defendant was not advised of the immigration consequences of a plea. We emphasize that all such claims filed subsequent to our decision in Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1999), must be filed pursuant to a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Peart, 756 So. 2d at 45. Rubio is quashed as being inconsistent with our decision in Peart.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur. HARDING, C.J., and WELLS and QUINCE, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Perry, 786 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2001)…on the voluntariness of a plea could be addressed by a coram nobis petition. Id. Compare Gregersen v. State, 714 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that a coram nobis petition was available to challenge whether a plea was voluntary), approved, 758 So. 2d 106 (Fla.2000), with Peart v. State, 705 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (reaching the opposite conclusion — that a coram nobis was not available to challenge whether a plea was voluntary), quashed, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla.2000).4 It is well established that…
-
Covington v. State, 770 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Gregersen v. State, 714 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (applying laches), affirmed on other grounds, 758 So. 2d 106 (Fla.2000). MINER and ALLEN, JJ., SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, CONCUR.…
-
State v. Lopez, 785 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…d therein. Contrary to the state’s assertion the transcript of the evi-dentiary hearing demonstrates that the trial court properly addressed the laches issue and properly found that Gregersen v. State, 714 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), affirming, 758 So. 2d 106 (Fla.2000) is factually distinguishable. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1999)
- Roan Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2000)
- Roan Peart v. State, 705 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Dante Rubio v. State, 706 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- U.S.C. Sales Corp., Inc. v. Gall, 706 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)