Opinion
No. 1D20-3245
03-19-2021
Raimundo Antonio HOGAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Raimundo Antonio Hogan, pro se, Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Raimundo Antonio Hogan, pro se, Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Per Curiam.
Raimundo Antonio Hogan seeks review of the trial court's order dismissing his collateral attack on his 1995 judgment and sentence. Hogan sought relief by petition for writ of error coram nobis. The trial court treated the petition as a motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and summarily denied the motion as untimely.
"[T]he writ of error coram nobis no longer exists in Florida." See Schofield v. State , 244 So. 3d 154, 156 (Fla. 2018) ; see also Wood v. State , 750 So. 2d 592, 594–95 (Fla. 1999) (holding that the writ of error coram nobis is no longer available under Florida law, but explaining that for those cases in which guilt was adjudicated before the opinion, those defendants would still have two years from the date of the opinion to file claims traditionally cognizable under coram nobis). For Hogan to have petitioned for such a writ, he had to file the petition no later than 2001. See id. Because he waited until 2020 to file the petition, the writ was unavailable for him to seek correction of his judgment and sentence.
Even so, the trial court treated Hogan's petition as a motion seeking postconviction relief under rule 3.850. But because Hogan filed his motion twenty-three years after his judgment and sentence became final in 1997, and he argued no exception to the two-year limitation for filing such a motion under rule 3.850, the trial court summarily dismissed the motion as untimely. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b) ; see also Flowers v. State , 278 So. 3d 899, 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (holding that postconviction claims "filed more than two years after the judgment and sentence become final are procedurally barred as untimely unless they fall within an exception to the two-year deadline"). Finding no error by the trial court, we AFFIRM.
Rowe, Makar, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.