State v. Kalici

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Kalici

767 So. 2d 451, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 679, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1760, 2000 WL 1260231

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedSeptember 7, 2000

DocketNo. SC96587

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 767 So. 2d 451 (State v. Kalici) 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

State v. Kalici, 767 So. 2d 451, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 679, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1760, 2000 WL 1260231 (Fla. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Kalici v. State, 755 So.2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), on the ground of express and direct conflict with Peart v. State, 705 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), quashed 756 So.2d 42 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We recently held in Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42 (Fla.2000), that prior to Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999), a noncustodial defendant properly could have sought relief based on a trial court’s failure to advise him or her of the immigration consequences of a plea through a petition for writ of error coram nobis and that defendants have two years from the time they are threatened with deportation to file the pleading. See Peart, 756 So.2d at 46. We emphasize that from Wood forward, claimants should employ a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 when seeking such relief. We approve the result below since it is consistent with our decision in Peart.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur. WELLS, C.J., 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 Kalici v. State, 755 So.2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), on the ground of express and direct conflict with Peart v. State, 705 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), quashed 756 So.2d 42 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We recently held in Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42 (Fla.2000), that prior to Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999), a noncustodial defendant properly could have sought relief based on a trial court’s failure to advise him or her of the immigration consequences of a plea through a petition for writ of error coram nobis and that defendants have two years from the time they are threatened with deportation to file the pleading. See Peart, 756 So.2d at 46. We emphasize that from Wood forward, claimants should employ a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 when seeking such relief. We approve the result below since it is consistent with our decision in Peart.

It is so ordered.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

767 So. 2d 451, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 679, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1760, 2000 WL 1260231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kalici-fla-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack