The Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592, (Fla. 1999) case did involve a petitioner who sought to set aside a plea based upon alleged misunderstandings that had existed at the time of the plea. However, the merits of that petition were not considered by the court. The only issue decided by the Supreme Court was "whether writs of error coram nobis are subject to the time limitations contained in rule 3.850." Wood at 593. "Wood's petition was found not to be time-barred, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Id. The supreme court held that claims which previously could have been filed by persons who were not in custody pursuant to coram nobis were now to be filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court determined that the two-year time limitation contained in rule 3.850 would apply only to defendants adjudicated guilty after the filing date of the decision in Wood; the court determined that defendants adjudicated guilty prior to the filing date of the opinion "shall have two years from the filing date within which to file claims traditionally cognizable under coram nobis." Id. at 595. In Wood, the court again emphasized the limited purpose of the writ of error coram nobis: The function of a writ of error coram nobis is to correct errors of fact, not errors of law. The facts upon which the petition is based must have been unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that the defendant or his counsel could not have known them by the use of diligence. Wood, 750 So. 2d at 593. In Wood v. State, the petitioner originally pled guilty to reckless driving and possession of cocaine. The trial court withheld adjudication and placed him on probation. After he completed his sentence, he was convicted of federal drug offenses. Based on his prior state plea, his federal sentence was increased. He petitioned the state court to set aside his earlier plea, contending that it was not informed and voluntary because his lawyer did not tell him that his plea could be used against him in federal court as a "prior offense." 750 So. 2d at 593. As Wood was no longer in custody, he filed a writ for error coram nobis, rather than a petition pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The Court found that the use of a coram nobis petition was the proper vehicle for Wood to challenge his plea. Moreover, as a coram nobis petition did not have any specific deadline, Wood's petition was found not to be time-barred. Id. at 595. The Court modified rule 3.850, so that the same deadlines and procedures would govern both in-custody and out-of-custody defendants.