STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM ELISE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida reversed a trial court's grant of post-conviction relief where a defendant who had completed probation sought to vacate his guilty plea based on the trial judge's failure to inform him that pleading guilty to cocaine possession could result in deportation. The appellate court held that Rule 3.850 relief is unavailable once a defendant is no longer in custody and that a petition for writ of error coram nobis would be time-barred by laches.
A defendant seeking post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850 must be in custody; since Elise had completed his probation before filing the motion, he was ineligible for such relief. Additionally, a petition for writ of error coram nobis filed more than two years after judgment is time-barred by laches, though on remand Elise may attempt to seek coram nobis relief if he can satisfy the 'new facts' exception.
[1] A defendant who has completed probation and is no longer in custody is ineligible for post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850.
[2] Probationary status is considered custody for the purposes of a Rule 3.850 motion.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A defendant seeking post-conviction relief under a Rule 3.850 motion must be 'in custody.'”
Establishes the fundamental eligibility requirement for Rule 3.850 relief that the appellee failed to meet.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam Elise, a permanent legal resident, pled guilty to cocaine possession and was sentenced to three years probation and community service. The tri…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse an order granting appellee’s Rule 3.850 motion. Appellee has successfully completed his probation and is no longer in custody, which precludes relief under Rule 3.850. Further, any possibility that appel-lee’s failed Rule 3.850 motion could be treated as a petition for writ of error coram nobis is barred by laches.
Appellee, William Elise, a permanent legal resident of the United States, pled guilty to possession of cocaine and was sentenced to three years probation and community service. During the plea colloquy the trial judge did not inform appellee that the plea agreement could subject him to deportation. After successfully completing his probation, appellee was detained by Immigration and Naturalization Services for deportation. More than two years after his judgment and sentence became final appellee filed a Rule 3.850 motion seeking to have his plea and sentence vacated based on the trial court’s failure to orally inform him of the deportation consequences of his plea agreement. Without waiting for the state’s response be cause appellee was scheduled for deportation, the trial court granted appellee’s Rule 3.850 motion. The state’s motion for rehearing was denied and this appeal follows.
A defendant seeking post-conviction relief under a Rule 3.850 motion must be “in custody.” See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(a)(1998). Although probationary status is considered custody for purposes of a Rule 3.850 motion, here the appellee’s probation was completed prior to filing the Rule 3.850 motion. As such, we conclude the appellee is ineligible for post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850.
While we have considered the possibility of treating appellee’s Rule 3.850 motion as a petition for writ of error coram nobis, such a petition is time barred based upon this Court’s recent decision in State v. Taylor, 722 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(petition for coram nobis filed more than two years after judgment and sentence become final is barred by laches.) However, on remand the appellee should be given the opportunity to seek coram nobis relief if he is able to satisfy the “new facts” exception under Rule 3.850(b).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GUNTHER, WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gino Kalici v. State, 755 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…is petition within the applicable two-year time limit. This court has repeatedly held petitions for writs of error coram nobis are time barred by laches if filed more than two years after judgment and sentence have become final. See State v. Elise, 727 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Gabriel v. State, 723 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); State v. Taylor, 722 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The Florida Supreme Court recently agreed with this position when it held the two-year' time limit contained in rule 3.85…
-
Kahlid Boudali v. State, 731 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…itions such as the one filed by appellant are barred by laches where they have been filed more than two years after judgment and sentence have become final. State v. Taylor, 722 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); State v. Elise, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D464, 727 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Affirmed. POLEN, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Taylor, 722 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)