Opinion
No. SC94568.
Opinion filed April 27, 2000.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Direct Conflict of Decisions — Third District — No. 3D98-1040 (Dade County).
William M. Richardson, Jr., Miami, Florida, for Petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Michael J. Neimand and Frank J. Ingrassia, Senior Assistant Attorneys General, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Respondent.
We have for review Romero v. State, 720 So.2d 1159 (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. 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.Romero is quashed as being inconsistent with our decision inPeart.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
HARDING, C.J., and WELLS and QUINCE, JJ., dissent.