
    David Hernandez RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. SC96794.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Sept. 7, 2000.
    Neil D. Kolner of the Law Office of Michael D. Ray, Miami, Florida, for Petitioner.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Robert J. Krauss, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chief of Criminal Law, Tampa Bureau, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

We have for review Rodriguez v. State, 742 So.2d 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), which is a per curiam decision without opinion citing only to Peart v. State, 705 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), quashed, 756 So.2d 42 (Fla.2000). 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, 756 So.2d 42 (Fla.2000), that a defendant may seek postconviction relief based on a claim that he or she 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, 756 So.2d at 45. Rodriguez is quashed as being inconsistent with our decision in Peart.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

WELLS, C.J., and HARDING and QUINCE, JJ., dissent.  