State v. Lackman

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Lackman

758 So. 2d 105, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 328, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 801, 2000 WL 488453

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedApril 27, 2000

DocketNo. SC94302

StatusPublished

This text of 758 So. 2d 105 (State v. Lackman) 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. Lackman, 758 So. 2d 105, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 328, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 801, 2000 WL 488453 (Fla. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review State v. Lackman, 719 So.2d 964 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), which certified conflict with Peart v. State, 705 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). We have [106]*106jurisdiction. 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. 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. Lackman is approved as being consistent 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 State v. Lackman, 719 So.2d 964 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), which certified conflict with Peart v. State, 705 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). We have [106]*106jurisdiction. 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. 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. Lackman is approved as being consistent 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 801, 2000 WL 488453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lackman-fla-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack