SAMUEL C. HILL, 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.
The court held that a petition for a writ of error coram nobis was not the proper vehicle for post-conviction relief after the amendment of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Hill filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, claiming the trial court and his defense counsel failed to advise him of the consequences of hi…
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
Hill appeals from an order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We affirm.
On April 18, 2000, Hill filed a petition claiming that both the trial court and his defense counsel failed to advise him of the consequences of having entered guilty pleas to criminal charges. Because he was not then in custody, he selected coram nobis as the proper vehicle to raise these issues.
However, in 1999, the Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 to provide that parties seeking post-conviction relief, whether in custody or not, should proceed under that rule. Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1999). Thus, Hill should have sought post-conviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850.1
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Hill’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis, but without prejudice to seek relief pursuant to rule 3.850.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ., concur. . Hill’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and the trial court’s failure to follow the proper plea procedure are generally raised under Florida Rule of Criminal Proce dure 3.850. See, e.g., Mack v. State, 684 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Turner v. State, 570 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Smothers v. State, 555 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parris v. State, 974 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…a rule 3.800(b) motion. Brown, 786 So. 2d at 1258 n. 1. . In addition to Thomas, there are several other cases on all fours but none were cited to us by either party. See, e.g., Evett v. State, 947 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Ballester v. State, 779 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Gammon v. State, 778 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We assume that this was an oversight and admonish counsel for both parties to be more thorough with their research. It is counsel’s responsibility to advise the court of availab…
Authorities Cited
- Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1999)
- Smothers v. State, 555 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Elliott R. Subervi v. Hon. Jeffords D. Miller, 555 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Sherrill B. Turner v. State, 570 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Mack v. State, 684 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)