Title: Sabina Maria Van Tuyn v. State of Florida
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC95-975
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: April 27, 2000

Supreme Court of Florida
 
____________
No. SC95975
____________
SABINA MARIA VAN TUYN,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[April 27, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
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
-2-
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 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 - Certified Direct
Conflict of Decisions
 Third District - Case 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
-3-
General, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
for Respondent