ROBERT HARRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ROBERT HARRIS, APPELLANT,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
829 So. 2d 328
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2002)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
[*329] PER CURIAM.
We affirm the denial of Robert Harris’ petition as untimely filed. Even though Harris labeled his petition as one for writ of error coram nobis, all of his allegations pertain to ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with pleas entered on December 8, 1980, and March 21, 1987. The proper pleading which Harris should have filed was a motion under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court, therefore, properly denied the petition as untimely. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howarth v. State, 843 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ineffectiveness for failing to properly explain the elements of the crime charged.” Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not errors of fact that are cognizable in a traditional petition for writ of error coram nobis. See Harris v. State, 829 So. 2d 328, 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (although appellant labeled his petition as one for writ of error coram nobis, all of his allegations pertain to ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with pleas, and should have been made via a 3.850 motion; theref…
-
Medina v. State, 919 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…nobis.” Id. at 353 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The court also found that Howarth’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an adequate factual basis. Id. at 352 citing to Howarth v. State, 673 So. 2d at 582. See also Harris v. State, 829 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(affirming the denial of a petition for writ of coram nobis as untimely filed). In Harris, The court held that “even though Harris labeled his petition as one for writ of error coram nobis, all of his allegations pertain to ineffec…