Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by the State of Florida against a trial court order that granted Boris Masip's petition for a writ of error coram nobis, seeking to vacate his 1989 no contest plea to lewd assault on a minor due to the resulting deportation proceedings. Masip argued that he was unaware of the deportation consequences at the time of his plea. The trial court accepted his petition. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, noting that a writ of error coram nobis is limited to situations where no other remedy is available. Masip was in state custody during his probation, which disqualified him from coram nobis relief and instead allowed him the option to file a timely motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The appellate court found that Masip’s petition was an attempt to evade the procedural time constraints of rule 3.850. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case with instructions to deny the petition, reaffirming the procedural boundaries of post-conviction relief mechanisms.
Legal Issues Addressed
Availability of Writ of Error Coram Nobissubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The writ of error coram nobis is not available when other remedies, such as a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, could have been pursued.
Reasoning: The appellate court emphasizes that a writ of error coram nobis should only be granted when no other remedy is available.
Eligibility for Coram Nobis Reliefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Coram nobis relief is restricted to individuals who are no longer in state custody. As Masip was in state custody during his probation, he was ineligible for this relief.
Reasoning: Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, coram nobis is limited to cases where the petitioner is not in state custody. Masip was in state custody during his probation, which negated his eligibility for coram nobis relief.
Timeliness and Procedural Limitationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that Masip's petition sought to circumvent the time limitations associated with filing a motion under rule 3.850.
Reasoning: The court concludes that Masip's petition is an attempt to bypass the time limitations established by rule 3.850.