Wood v. State, 96-4336
| Decision Date | 11 July 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-4336,96-4336 |
| Citation | 698 So.2d 293 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1678 Robert Earl WOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. First District |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert Earl Wood, Marianna, Pro Se.
Robert Butterworth, Attorney General, and Trisha E. Meggs, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
The appellant challenges an order by which the trial court denied his petition for a writ of error coram nobis because it was filed beyond the two-year time period specified in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the order, but we certify conflict with Malcolm v. State, 605 So.2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
In 1996, the appellant filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in which he challenged two 1988 convictions. The appellant apparently sought a writ of error coram nobis rather than relief under rule 3.850 because he had completed his sentence for the 1988 convictions and was no longer "in custody" as required for relief under the rule. Because the petition was filed more than two years after the 1988 convictions became final, the trial court denied the petition as untimely.
In light of the supreme court's decision in Richardson v. State, 546 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1989), virtually all claims formally cognizable by petition for writ of error coram nobis may now be presented only under rule 3.850 which contains a requirement that the motion be filed within two years after the judgment and sentence become final. The only apparent continuing application for the writ of error coram nobis is in the situation where the petitioner would have a viable claim under rule 3.850 but for the "in custody" requirement. A petition for a writ of error coram nobis therefore must satisfy the two-year limitation of rule 3.850. If the two-year limitation were not applied to petitions for writs of error coram nobis, they could be used to circumvent the rule. By analogy, the case law precludes resort to a petition for writ of habeas corpus to pursue the time-barred claims of persons who are in custody. See, e.g., Patterson v. State, 664 So.2d 31 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Robbins v. State, 564 So.2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
Because the appellant's petition in the present case was filed beyond the two-year time limitation, it was properly denied as untimely. See Vonia v. State, 680 So.2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
We recognize that the court in Malcolm expressly held that a petition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bates v. State
...for writ of error coram nobis which had the limited use we had recognized in Richardson. The 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 two-year limitation which applied to a rule 3.850 motion applied to a pet......
-
Peart v. State
...DCA 1998), wherein the district court certified conflict with Marriott v. State, 605 So.2d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), and Wood v. State, 698 So.2d 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), quashed, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We quash Peart and approve Th......
-
Peart v. State, s. 97-2229
...recede from Beckles, and its progeny and certify conflict with Marriott v. State, 605 So.2d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), and Wood v. State, 698 So.2d 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), review granted, 705 So.2d 571 (Fla. 1998). We affirm the denial of relief in Peart, Jimenez, and Ross, reverse the order......
-
Knibbs v. State, 98-04829.
...the petitioner was in custody, and denied the petition as time-barred under rule 3.850. The district court affirmed. See Wood v. State, 698 So.2d 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The supreme court reversed, finding that Wood could seek relief through a petition for error coram nobis, and ruled that......