Title: Dante Rubio v. State of Florida

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida
 
____________
No. SC92844
____________
DANTE RUBIO,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[April 27, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Rubio v. State, 706 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998),
which is a per curiam decision citing only to Peart v. State, 705 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1998).  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State,
405 So. 2d 418, 420 (Fla. 1981).  
This Court recently held in Peart v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S271 (Fla. Apr.
-2-
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.  Rubio is quashed as being inconsistent with our decision in Peart.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
HARDING, C.J., and WELLS and QUINCE, JJ., dissent.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF
FILED, DETERMINED.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Direct Conflict
of Decisions
 Third District - Case No.  3D97-3107 
( Dade County)
Richard Hersch of Hersch & Talisman, P.A., Miami, Florida,
for Petitioner
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Michael J. Neimand, Assistant Attorney
-3-
General, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
for Respondent