JEAN RICHARD ST. PREUX, 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.
Jean Richard St. Preux appeals the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, claiming the trial court violated Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8) by failing to inform him that his guilty plea could result in deportation. The court reverses and remands, holding that the writ of error coram nobis was the proper procedural vehicle at the time of filing and that the defendant need only show prejudice, not probable acquittal at trial.
The court reversed, holding that because St. Preux filed his petition prior to the Wood decision (May 27, 1999), the writ of error coram nobis was the proper vehicle for relief. The defendant need not prove he most probably would have been acquitted; he must only show prejudice from the error.
[1] A writ of error coram nobis is the proper procedural vehicle to allege a violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8) when the petition was filed prior to…
[2] A defendant seeking relief for a violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8) need not prove they most probably would have been acquitted had they pleaded…
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 writ of error coram nobis was the proper vehicle for a defendant to allege a rule 3.172(c)(8) violation. See Peart, 756 So.2d at 45. As of Wood, parties should file petitions alleging rule 3.172(c)(8) violations pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.”
Establishes the proper procedural vehicle for Rule 3.172(c)(8) violations depends on the timing of the filing relative to the Wood decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSt. Preux filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis on November 21, 1997, alleging that the trial court violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedu…
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.
Jean Richard St. Preux appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis which alleged that the trial court violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8) in sentencing him without informing him that his pleas could subject him to deportation. We reverse.
St. Preux argues that the trial court erred in denying his petition on grounds that (1) the writ of error coram nobis was not the proper avenue for relief, and (2) St. Preux was required to show that he most probably would have been acquitted had he pleaded not guilty and gone to trial. Since the entry of the trial court’s order, the Florida Supreme Court has decided Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla.2000). In that case, the supreme court held that, prior to its opinion in Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1999), which was rendered on May 27, 1999, the writ of error coram nobis was the proper vehicle for a defendant to allege a rule 3.172(c)(8) violation. See Peart, 756 So. 2d at 45. As of Wood, parties should file petitions alleging rule 3.172(c)(8) violations pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Id. Additionally, parties need not prove that they most probably would have been acquitted had they pleaded not guilty and gone to trial when seeking such relief. Id. To obtain relief, the party must only show prejudice from the error. Id. at 48.
On November 21, 1997, St. Preux filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging a violation of rule 3.172(c)(8) and attached an order of deportation to the petition. Because St. Preux filed the petition prior to Wood, the trial court should have considered the petition on its merits. Because it is not clear from the record whether St. Preux was prejudiced by the rule 3.172(c)(8) violation,1 we reverse the trial court’s order with directions to consider the petition.
PARKER, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur. . Even though St. Preux has been ordered deported, it is possible for the State to prove that he was not prejudiced by -the rule 3.172(c)(8) violation. See, e.g., State v. Luders, 768 So. 2d 440, 441 (Fla.2000) (holding that a defendant was not prejudiced by a rule 3.172(c)(8) violation because counsel had advised him of the risk of deportation and he had decided to accept that risk); Johnson v. State, 760 So. 2d 992, 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that a rule 3.172(c)(8) violation was not prejudicial even though the defendant was subject to deportation because he did not realize he was British at the time of sentencing).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Seraphin, 818 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2002)…ct legal information. See State v. Rajaee, 745 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (holding defendant’s mistaken belief he was American citizen did not entitle him to withdraw plea). 760 So. 2d at 993-94 (emphasis supplied); see also St. Preux v. State, 769 So. 2d 1116, 1117 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“Even though St. Preux has been ordered deported, it is possible for the State to prove that he was not prejudiced by the rule 3.172(c)(8) violation.”).4 Accordingly, even though the Fourth District correctly observed…
-
Griffiths v. State, 776 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…would have sustained in that circumstance would relate to his own lack of knowledge about his own citizenship, and not to a failure of the trial court to give him correct legal information. Johnson, 760 So. 2d at 993. See also St. Preux v. State, 769 So. 2d 1116 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Nevertheless, because I am bound by the contrary opinion of the majority in Elharda, I reluctantly concur in reversal.…
-
Osric Jones v. State, 804 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…mmigration status. Deciding that the plea colloquy, although extensive, did not conclusively refute these allegations, the trial court ordered an evi-dentiary hearing. See Joseph v. State, 782 So. 2d 895, 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); St. Preux v. State, 769 So. 2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see generally State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1996). But see Hinds v. State, 726 So. 2d 812, 813-14 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). On the record made at the evidentiary hearing, the trial court was entitled to find that the fai…
Authorities Cited
- Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1999)
- Roan Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Luders, 768 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2000)
- Johnson v. State, 760 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)