From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Lackman

Supreme Court of Florida
Apr 27, 2000
758 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2000)

Opinion

No. SC94302.

Opinion filed April 27, 2000.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Direct Conflict of Decisions — Fourth District — No. 4D97-3962 (Broward County).

Harry M. Solomon, Miami, Florida, for Petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Celia Terenzio, Bureau Chief, and Jeanine M. Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Respondent.


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 jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

This Court recently held in Peart v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S271 (Fla. Apr. 13, 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, 25 Fla. L. Weekly at S273.Lackman is approved as being consistent with our decision inPeart.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

HARDING, C.J., and WELLS and QUINCE, JJ., dissent.


Summaries of

State v. Lackman

Supreme Court of Florida
Apr 27, 2000
758 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2000)
Case details for

State v. Lackman

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. SHARI LACKMAN, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Apr 27, 2000

Citations

758 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2000)