GINO KALICI, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Gino Kalici, a resident alien, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis seeking to withdraw his guilty plea to drug delivery after learning of deportation consequences. The court reversed and remanded based on the Florida Supreme Court's recent decision in Wood v. State, which established a two-year filing period for coram nobis petitions and provided that defendants convicted before the Wood decision had two years from Wood's filing date to file such petitions.
The petition is not time-barred. Under Wood v. State, defendants convicted prior to the Wood decision have two years from the filing date of Wood to file claims traditionally cognizable under coram nobis, and therefore Kalici's petition is timely.
[1] A petition for writ of error coram nobis is subject to a two-year time limit for filing after judgment and sentence become final.
[2] The Florida Supreme Court's decision in Wood v. …
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“Wood's petition is not time-barred since this Court is only now applying this limitation period to writs of error coram nobis. However, this decision shall apply to all defendants adjudicated guilty after the date this decision is filed, while all defendants adjudicated prior to this opinion shall have two years from the filing date within which to file claims traditionally cognizable under coram nobis.”
The Florida Supreme Court's holding establishing the two-year deadline for coram nobis petitions while providing a grace period for defendants convicted before the Wood decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn November 1986, Kalici, a resident alien, pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance and was sentenced to two years probation with a fine. Hi…
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 Writ Of Error Coram Nobis cases and more on FLexlaw
HAZOURI, J.
Appellant, Gino Kalici (“Kalici”), appeals from an order which denied his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Based upon the recent decision of the Florida Supreme Court in Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1999), we reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Kaliei’s coram nobis petition.
On November 17,1986, Kalici, a resident alien, pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance. Kalici was sentenced to two years probation and ordered to pay a fíne. Although Kaliei’s probation ended in 1988, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) arrested him in December of 1997 and initiated deportation proceedings based upon his conviction. On March 4, 1998, Kalici filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis claiming his plea should be withdrawn because the trial court had not informed him of possible deportation consequences when he pled guilty. In denying the motion, the trial court indicated Kalici could not withdraw his plea because he failed to file the coram nobis 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 3.850 applies to petitions for writs of error coram nobis. See Wood, 750 So. 2d 593. However, the court also stated:
Wood’s petition is not time-barred since this Court is only now applying this limitation period to writs of error coram nobis. However, this decision shall apply to all defendants adjudicated guilty after the date this decision is filed, while all defendants adjudicated prior to this opinion shall have two years from the filing date within which to file claims traditionally cognizable under coram nobis.
Id. (emphasis added). A plain reading of this language indicates that Kalici now has two years from the filing date of Wood to file a claim traditionally cognizable under coram nobis. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for an evidentiary hearing on Kaliei’s coram nobis petition.
GUNTHER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Gino Kalici, 767 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2000)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Kalici v. State, 755 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), on the ground of express and direct conflict with Peart v. State, 705 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), quashed 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We recently held in Peart v. Stat…
-
Soreliz Ascanio v. State, 754 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…roblem somewhat differently than was done in Knibbs, we believe Knibbs is well-reasoned and its approach is additional authority for the reversal of the order on appeal. See also McHugh v. State, 734 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Kalici v. State, 755 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Having concluded that Ascanio’s petition for writ of error coram nobis was timely filed, we turn to the merits of her claims. The record reflects that the sentencing judge failed to orally inform Ascanio of the contingency of d…
-
Calburt Knibbs v. State, 756 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…imprisonment or probation) [*114] should have brought rule 3.850 claims, and those who had never been in custody had no vehicle for relief on this issue, regardless of the timeliness of their claims. Id. at 1062-63. In contrast, in Kalici v. State, 755 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), the Fourth District reversed a denial of a petition for error coram nobis and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner’s claim that he should be permitted to withdraw a plea because he had not been advised…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1999)
- State v. Taylor, 722 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- State v. Elise, 727 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Gabriel v. State, 723 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)