No. SC92844 | Fla. | Apr 27, 2000
We have for review Rubio v. State, 706 So. 2d 957" date_filed="1998-03-18" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." case_name="Petrillo v. VIP Medical Centers, Inc.">706 So.2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), which is a per curiam decision citing only to Peart v. State, 705 So. 2d 1059" date_filed="1998-02-18" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." case_name="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" date_filed="1981-07-30" court="Fla." case_name="Jollie v. State">405 So.2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981).
This Court- recently held in Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42" date_filed="2000-04-13" court="Fla." case_name="Peart v. State">756 So.2d 42 (Fla.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" date_filed="1999-05-27" court="Fla." case_name="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, 756 So.2d at 45. Rubio is quashed as being inconsistent with our decision in Peart.
It is so ordered.