RICHARD CHARLES SWIGERT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a writ of error coram nobis. The concurring opinion clarified that this writ is reserved for extreme cases where no other relief is available and that the appellant failed to show he was still prejudiced by the conviction after serving his sentence.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the petition for a writ of error coram nobis.
“Historically the writ of error coram nobis was reserved for extreme cases in which great injustice would be done if the writ were not awarded and no other means for obtaining judicial relief was available.”
Explains the historical and narrow scope of the writ of error coram nobis.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a judgment of conviction. The trial court denied the petition. The appellant had already se…
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
Affirmed.
(specially concurring).
I think it ■ should be pointed out for the guidance of the bar that the question presented by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis. This court has recognized the existence of the writ in conjunction with the post-conviction relief supplied by Rule 1.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A. See McCormick v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 164 So.2d 557; Davis v. State, Fla. App.1966, 191 So.2d 440.
Historically the writ of error coram nobis was reserved for extreme cases in which great injustice would be done if the writ were not awarded and no other means for obtaining judicial relief was available. See 18 Am.Jur.2d, Coram Nobis, § 1, page 448. It is my view that the appellant’s petition did not present a basis for the relief sought because it showed that appellant had served his sentence under the judgment of conviction he had sought to have vacated, and it failed to show that he was in jeopardy of losing any legal right because of the judgment.
PEARSON, Chief Judge
(specially concurring).
I think it should be pointed out for the guidance of the bar that the question presented by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis. This court has recognized the existence of the writ in conjunction with the post-conviction relief supplied by Rule 1.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A. See McCormick v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 164 So. 2d 557; Davis v. State, Fla. App.1966, 191 So. 2d 440.
Historically the writ of error coram nobis was reserved for extreme cases in which great injustice would be done if the writ were not awarded and no other means for obtaining judicial relief was available. See 18 Am.Jur.2d, Coram Nobis, § 1, page 448. It is my view that the appellant’s petition did not present a basis for the relief sought because it showed that appellant had served his sentence under the judgment of conviction he had sought to have vacated, and it failed to show that he was in jeopardy of losing any legal right because of the judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McCORMICK v. State, 164 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Davis v. State, 191 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)