Opinion
No. SC95975.
Opinion filed April 27, 2000.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Direct Conflict of Decisions — Third District — No. 3D98-1429 (Dade County).
Law Offices of Frederick Sake, Miami Beach, Florida, and John H. Lipinski, Miami, Florida, for Petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Michael J. Neimand, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Respondent.
We have for review Van Tuyn v. State, 736 So.2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), which is a per curiam decision relying solely on Peart v. State, 705 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), and which certified conflict with Gregersen v. State, 714 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), 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.Van Tuyn is quashed as being inconsistent with our decision inPeart.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
HARDING, C.J., and WELLS and QUINCE, JJ., dissent.