Somintac v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Somintac v. State

767 So. 2d 1171, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 679, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1761, 2000 WL 1258881

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedSeptember 7, 2000

DocketNo. SC00-234

StatusPublished

This text of 767 So. 2d 1171 (Somintac 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

Somintac v. State, 767 So. 2d 1171, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 679, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1761, 2000 WL 1258881 (Fla. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review the decision in Somintac v. State, 748 So.2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), which was certified to be in conflict with the opinions in Kalici v. State, 755 So.2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), approved, 767 So.2d 451 (Fla.2000), and Gregersen v. State, 714 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), approved, 758 So.2d 106 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), 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 and that defendants have two years from the time they are threatened with deportation to file the pleading. See id. at 46. 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 46. Somintac is quashed as being inconsistent with our decision in Peart.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur. WELLS,-CJ., and HARDING 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 the decision in Somintac v. State, 748 So.2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), which was certified to be in conflict with the opinions in Kalici v. State, 755 So.2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), approved, 767 So.2d 451 (Fla.2000), and Gregersen v. State, 714 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), approved, 758 So.2d 106 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), 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 and that defendants have two years from the time they are threatened with deportation to file the pleading. See id. at 46. 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 46. Somintac is quashed as being inconsistent with our decision in Peart.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur. WELLS,-CJ., and HARDING and QUINCE, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

767 So. 2d 1171, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 679, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1761, 2000 WL 1258881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/somintac-v-state-fla-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack