Roberson v. State

Summary

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal held that Roberson's postconviction motion was timely under Wood v. State. The court affirmed denial of his claim that counsel failed to preserve an appellate issue because that allegation involved a legal error not cognizable in coram nobis. It reversed and remanded for consideration of claims that counsel misinformed Roberson about the nature of his plea and that the trial court failed to advise him of the rights he was waiving.

Holdings

1. The motion was timely under Wood v. State because Wood eliminated the custody requirement and afforded defendants adjudicated before that decision two years from its filing date to bring claims traditionally cognizable under coram nobis.
2. The claim that trial counsel failed to preserve an issue for appeal was a legal-error claim and was not cognizable in a coram nobis petition; denial of relief on that claim was affirmed.
3. Roberson was entitled to seek postconviction relief based on allegations that counsel misinformed him that he was entering a misdemeanor plea and that the trial court failed to advise him of the rights he was giving up; the case was remanded for further proceedings on those claims only.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Roberson's postconviction motion was timely under Wood v. State despite the former custody requirement in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
2. Whether a claim that trial counsel failed to preserve an issue for appeal was cognizable in a coram nobis-based postconviction proceeding.
3. Whether claims that counsel misinformed Roberson about the nature of his plea and that the trial court failed to advise him of waived rights were cognizable and entitled to further proceedings.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded