KEMP
v.
STATE
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.
A petition for writ of error coram nobis must satisfy the two-year limitation period of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and counsel has no duty to advise a defendant that a guilty plea may have sentence-enhancing consequences in future cases.
[1] The writ of error coram nobis has been supplanted by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and petitions formerly brought as writs of error coram nobis must satisfy t…
[2] Trial counsel has no duty to advise a defendant that a guilty plea in one case may have sentence-enhancing consequences in a separate future criminal case.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“[A] petition for writ of error coram nobis must satisfy the two-year limitation of rule 3.850.”
Court citing Medina v. State on the procedural requirement for timeliness of such petitions
Kemp filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis more than nine years after entering a guilty plea and receiving sentence on August 15, 2008. He cl…
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 Untimely Filing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s order summarily denying Appellant’s petition for writ of error coram nobis. The trial court properly treated the petition as a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which has supplanted the need for the writ of error coram nobis. See Wood v. State, 750
So. 2d 592, 594-95 (Fla. 1999). Accordingly, Appellant’s postconviction motion is untimely pursuant to Rule 3.850(b) as it was filed more than nine years after his guilty plea and sentence were entered on August 15, 2008. See Medina v. State,
919 So. 2d 566, 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (quoting Wood, 750 So. 2d at 594) (“[A] petition for writ of error coram nobis must satisfy the two-year limitation of rule
3.850.”). Moreover, Appellant’s claim that his counsel was ineffective in failing to advise him that a guilty plea could be used against him in the future is misplaced.
See Major v. State, 790 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), approved, 814 So. 2d 424,
431 (Fla. 2002) (“[W]e hold that neither the trial court nor counsel has a duty to advise a defendant that the defendant's plea in a pending case may have sentence enhancing consequences on a sentence imposed for a crime committed in the future.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1999)
- Daron Merritt v. State, 814 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2002)
- Fritz Major v. State, 790 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Steele v. Crosby, 919 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)