63 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1927–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Wood v. Stategreen2 sentences2008NOTES [1] In a prior order, we withdrew the panel's prior per curiam affirmance. [2] INS is the predecessor to the Citizenship and Immigration Services. [3] Prior to Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla. 1999), and Peart , defendants not in custody also utilized a petition for writ of error coram nobis for this purpose. [4] The existing record does not disclose any date prior to November 8, 2002, by which Freijo had or should have had knowledge of the threat of deportation based on his plea. [5] This Court has also commented on such consequences. 2004The First District in Wood v. State, 698 So.2d 293, 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), quashed, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999), held that the same *1218 two-year limitation which applied to a rule 3.850 motion applied to a petition for writ of error coram nobis. [2] The First District certified conflict with Malcolm v. State, 605 So.2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), in which the Third District held that a petition for writ of error coram nobis is not subject to the two-year limitation. [3] In Wood, we accepted that Wood was "no longer in custody" so that Wood, unlike Richardson, could file a petition for writ of err | 3 | 22 |
Hallman v. Stategreen2 sentences2001As Judge Joanos noted in his dissent, the issue is one of law which, pursuant to Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999), and Hallman v. State, 371 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1979), is not cognizable by way of a petition for writ of error coram nobis. 1988We decline Darden’s suggestion that in the capital sentencing context one seeking leave to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis need only establish that the newly discovered evi dence is “a material and relevant factor which should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the sentence” and “would be a significant but not controlling factor in determining the appropriateness of the death sentence in [a particular] cause.” 371 So.2d at 487 (Overton, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). | 3 | 15 |
Peart v. Stategreen2 sentences2000V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. This Court recently held in Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42 (Fla.2000), that a petition for writ of error coram nobis was the proper vehicle for raising a claim that a noncustodial defendant was not advised of the immigration consequences of a plea. 2000This Court recently held in Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42 (Fla.2000), that a petition for writ of error coram nobis was the proper vehicle for raising a claim that a noncustodial defendant was not advised of the immigration consequences of a plea. | 2 | 7 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences1990Hallman v. State, 371 So.2d 482 (Fla.1979); Smith v. State, 400 So.2d 956 (Fla.1981). 1986See Smith v. State, 400 So.2d 956 (Fla.1981); Hallman v. State, 371 So.2d 482 (Fla.1979); Tafero v. State, 406 So.2d 89 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Woodsgreen2 sentences2001State v. Woods, 400 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla. 1981); Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396 , 107 So. 535 (1926); Shurtleff v. State, 738 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), review dismissed, 753 So.2d 566 (Fla.2000). 1999State v. Woods, 400 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla.1981) (the trial court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis absent permission from the appellate court when the judgment has been affirmed by the appellate court; however, where no appeal was taken from the judgment, the petition must be filed in the trial court). | 2 | 3 |
Perry v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Perry v. State, 786 So.2d 583, 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (Joanos, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 2001See Perry v. State, 786 So.2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), review granted, 767 So.2d 461 (Fla.2000). | 2 | 2 |
Malcolm v. Stategreen2 sentences2004The First District in Wood v. State, 698 So.2d 293, 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), quashed, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999), held that the same *1218 two-year limitation which applied to a rule 3.850 motion applied to a petition for writ of error coram nobis. [2] The First District certified conflict with Malcolm v. State, 605 So.2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), in which the Third District held that a petition for writ of error coram nobis is not subject to the two-year limitation. [3] In Wood, we accepted that Wood was "no longer in custody" so that Wood, unlike Richardson, could file a petition for writ of err 2000See Fox, 659 So.2d at 1326 , citing Malcolm v. State, 605 So.2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(in order to be legally sufficient, a petition for writ of error coram nobis must allege specific facts of such a vital nature that had they been known to the trial court, they conclusively would have prevented entry of judgment and sentence attacked); Bartz, 740 So.2d at 1245 (a generalized complaint is not legally sufficient to sustain a writ of error coram nobis); Somintac, 748 So.2d 301 (same). | 1 | 3 |
Dequesada v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Baker v. State, 150 Fla. 446 , 7 So.2d 792, 795-96 (1942); see also Dequesada v. State, 444 So.2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (holding a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may support a petition for writ of error eoram nobis). 1999Vonia distinguished two prior cases, Dequesada v. State, 444 So.2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), and Weir v. State, 319 So.2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), as having been decided before the two-year time limit on rule 3.850 motions was imposed. | 1 | 3 |
Rolle v. Stategreen2 sentences1991See, e.g., Rolle v. State, 451 So.2d 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), affirmed, 475 So.2d 210 (Fla.1985). 1985Rolle v. State, 451 So.2d 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). | 1 | 2 |
Wright v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Wright v. State, 711 So.2d 66, 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (approving the imposition of the bar of laches when the defendant is not diligent and State is prejudiced by the passage of many years because "[t]here must be some point at which criminal convictions and sentences are final and unassailable"). [6] We have already declined to extend the new two-year window created by Green to a case in which a claimant's motion to modify plea based on an alleged failure to warn on deportation consequences was denied by the trial court and affirmed here before Green was decided. | 1 | 1 |
Wood v. Stategreen2 sentences2004The First District in Wood v. State, 698 So.2d 293, 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), quashed, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999), held that the same *1218 two-year limitation which applied to a rule 3.850 motion applied to a petition for writ of error coram nobis. [2] The First District certified conflict with Malcolm v. State, 605 So.2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), in which the Third District held that a petition for writ of error coram nobis is not subject to the two-year limitation. [3] In Wood, we accepted that Wood was "no longer in custody" so that Wood, unlike Richardson, could file a petition for writ of err 2004The First District in Wood v. State, 698 So.2d 293, 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), quashed, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999), held that the same *1218 two-year limitation which applied to a rule 3.850 motion applied to a petition for writ of error coram nobis. [2] The First District certified conflict with Malcolm v. State, 605 So.2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), in which the Third District held that a petition for writ of error coram nobis is not subject to the two-year limitation. [3] In Wood, we accepted that Wood was "no longer in custody" so that Wood, unlike Richardson, could file a petition for writ of err | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Baker v. State, 150 Fla. 446 , 7 So.2d 792, 795-96 (1942); see also Dequesada v. State, 444 So.2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (holding a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may support a petition for writ of error eoram nobis). 2001See Baker v. State, 150 Fla. 446 , 7 So.2d 792, 795-96 (1942); see also Dequesada v. State, 444 So.2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (holding a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may support a petition for writ of error eoram nobis). | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Stategreen1 sentence2001In Phillips v. State, 623 So.2d 621, 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), this court reversed an order denying relief under rule 3.850 and remanded with instructions to discharge the defendant based on Williams , announcing that Williams could be applied retroactively. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Proceduregreen1 sentence2001P. 3.172(c)(8); see In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 536 So.2d 992, 992-94 (Fla.1988). [4] These were Roan Peart (1993 plea), Jose Jimenez (1990 plea), Andrew Moses Evans (1990 plea), and Jorge Prieto (1994 plea). | 1 | 1 |
Bartz v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See Fox, 659 So.2d at 1326 , citing Malcolm v. State, 605 So.2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(in order to be legally sufficient, a petition for writ of error coram nobis must allege specific facts of such a vital nature that had they been known to the trial court, they conclusively would have prevented entry of judgment and sentence attacked); Bartz, 740 So.2d at 1245 (a generalized complaint is not legally sufficient to sustain a writ of error coram nobis); Somintac, 748 So.2d 301 (same). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Foxgreen1 sentence2000See Fox, 659 So.2d at 1326 , citing Malcolm v. State, 605 So.2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(in order to be legally sufficient, a petition for writ of error coram nobis must allege specific facts of such a vital nature that had they been known to the trial court, they conclusively would have prevented entry of judgment and sentence attacked); Bartz, 740 So.2d at 1245 (a generalized complaint is not legally sufficient to sustain a writ of error coram nobis); Somintac, 748 So.2d 301 (same). | 1 | 1 |
Richardson v. Stategreen1 sentence1991See Richardson [v. State] [ 546 So.2d 1037 ] [Fla.1989] at 1038. | 1 | 1 |
| Rolle v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc. v. Sommergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Deauville Realty Co. v. Tobingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nickels v. State
green
2 sentences1999He was granted relief. [3] The opinion on rehearing is Nickels v. State, 86 Fla. 208 , 99 So. 121 (1924). [4] In the subsequent opinion on rehearing, the court found that the record supported the petitioner's claim, and his guilty plea was set aside. 1933Rep. 906 ; Nickels v. State, 86 Fla. 208 , 98 Sou. | 4 | 1928–1999 |
State v. Perry
green
2 sentences2002State v. Perry, 786 So.2d 554 (Fla.2001), receded from on other grounds, Major. 2001See id. at 595 (holding that defendants adjudicated prior to the opinion would have two years in which to raise claims traditionally cognizable in error coram nobis); State v. Perry, 786 So.2d 554 (Fla.2001) (holding that a petition for writ of error coram nobis cannot involve facts which were or should have *969 been known at the time of the error). | 2 | 2001–2002 |
Lamb v. State of Florida
green
2 sentences2001State v. Woods, 400 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla. 1981); Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396 , 107 So. 535 (1926); Shurtleff v. State, 738 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), review dismissed, 753 So.2d 566 (Fla.2000). 2001State v. Woods, 400 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla. 1981); Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396 , 107 So. 535 (1926); Shurtleff v. State, 738 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), review dismissed, 753 So.2d 566 (Fla.2000). | 2 | 1958–2001 |
Chesser v. State
green
2 sentences1933For the requirements of a petition for writ of error coram nobis, see Washington v. State, supra; Chesser v. State, 92 Fla. 754 , 109 Sou. 1933For the requirements of a petition for writ of error coram nobis, see Washington v. State, supra; Chesser v. State, 92 Fla. 754 , 109 Sou. | 2 | 1927–1933 |
Heuton v. State
green
1 sentence2013We find that the trial court properly treated the petition filed below as a motion seeking relief under Rule 3.850, see Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999), and summarily denied it pursuant to Hernandez v. State, 61 So.3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), approved, — So.3d-(Fla.2012). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence2001On March 13, 2000, Appellant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis seeking to vacate the judgment, claiming that he purchased the cocaine from an undercover detective working with the Broward County Sheriffs Office drug task force, which was involved in the illegal manufacture of crack cocaine used in reverse sting operations, and that, consequently, his conviction violated the principles of State v. Williams, 623 So.2d 462 (Fla.1993)(holding that illegal manufacture of crack cocaine by law enforcement officials for use in reverse sting operation within 1000 feet of school constituted | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Shurtleff v. State
neutral
1 sentence2001State v. Woods, 400 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla. 1981); Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396 , 107 So. 535 (1926); Shurtleff v. State, 738 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), review dismissed, 753 So.2d 566 (Fla.2000). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Somintac v. State
green
1 sentence2000See Fox, 659 So.2d at 1326 , citing Malcolm v. State, 605 So.2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(in order to be legally sufficient, a petition for writ of error coram nobis must allege specific facts of such a vital nature that had they been known to the trial court, they conclusively would have prevented entry of judgment and sentence attacked); Bartz, 740 So.2d at 1245 (a generalized complaint is not legally sufficient to sustain a writ of error coram nobis); Somintac, 748 So.2d 301 (same). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Weir v. State
green
1 sentence1999Vonia distinguished two prior cases, Dequesada v. State, 444 So.2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), and Weir v. State, 319 So.2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), as having been decided before the two-year time limit on rule 3.850 motions was imposed. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Peart v. State
green
1 sentence1999The trial court relied on Peart v. State, 705 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA), review granted, 722 So.2d 193 (Fla.1998), and denied the petition on the grounds that Knibbs' claim set out a legal, rather than factual error. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Vonia v. State
green
1 sentence1999In Vonia v. State, 680 So.2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), this court affirmed the denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis because the petition did not concern newly discovered evidence or questions of fact, and because the claim was not filed within the two-year time limit as dictated by rule 3.850. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Taylor
green
1 sentence1999While we have considered the possibility of treating appellee’s Rule 3.850 motion as a petition for writ of error coram nobis, such a petition is time barred based upon this Court’s recent decision in State v. Taylor, 722 So.2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(petition for coram nobis filed more than two years after judgment and sentence become final is barred by laches.) However, on remand the appellee should be given the opportunity to seek coram nobis relief if he is able to satisfy the “new facts” exception under Rule 3.850(b). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
North Carolina v. Alford
green
2 sentences1998Id. at 36-38 n. 10, 91 S.Ct. at 167 n. 10 (citations omitted). [2] The State has argued that the defendant's motion should be viewed as a petition for writ of error coram nobis because he was sentenced to time served on the charge of battery on a law enforcement officer, and consequently is no longer in custody on that charge. 1998Id. at 36-38 n. 10, 91 S.Ct. at 167 n. 10 (citations omitted). [2] The State has argued that the defendant's motion should be viewed as a petition for writ of error coram nobis because he was sentenced to time served on the charge of battery on a law enforcement officer, and consequently is no longer in custody on that charge. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Neely v. State green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Tafero v. State neutral | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Tafero v. State green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| State v. Stettin green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Booker v. State green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Riley v. State green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Scott v. Wainwright green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Blackmon v. State neutral | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Hallman v. State green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Hamilton v. State green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Cayson v. State green | 1 | 1965–1965 |
| House v. State green | 1 | 1958–1958 |
| Russ v. State green | 1 | 1958–1958 |
| Chambers v. State green | 1 | 1946–1946 |
| Walker Fertilizer Co. v. Cole green | 1 | 1941–1941 |
| Jarvis v. State green | 1 | 1934–1934 |
| Washington v. State green | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.