Romero v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Romero v. State

758 So. 2d 105, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 328, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 800, 2000 WL 488454

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedApril 27, 2000

DocketNo. SC94568

StatusPublished

This text of 758 So. 2d 105 (Romero v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Romero v. State, 758 So. 2d 105, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 328, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 800, 2000 WL 488454 (Fla. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Romero v. State, 720 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), which is a per curiam decision citing only to Peart v. State, 705 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981).

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. We emphasize that all such claims filed subsequent to our decision in Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999), must be filed pursuant to a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Peart, 756 So.2d at 45. Romero is quashed as being inconsistent with our decision in Peart.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur. HARDING, C.J., and WELLS and QUINCE, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Romero v. State, 720 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), which is a per curiam decision citing only to Peart v. State, 705 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981).

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. We emphasize that all such claims filed subsequent to our decision in Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999), must be filed pursuant to a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Peart, 756 So.2d at 45. Romero is quashed as being inconsistent with our decision in Peart.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur. HARDING, C.J., and WELLS and QUINCE, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

758 So. 2d 105, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 328, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 800, 2000 WL 488454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romero-v-state-fla-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack