Albo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Albo v. State

808 So. 2d 1275, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2396, 2002 WL 341831

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 6, 2002·No. No. 3D02-128·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Armando Ramirez Albo, (“defendant”), appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, claiming he entered into a plea of nolo contendere involuntarily.

Defendant contends that his plea should be set aside because counsel and the trial court failed to advise him that his 1992 conviction could be used against him in a subsequent proceeding to enhance any future sentence for a future crime. The trial court denied defendant’s postconviction motion because the record conclusively refuted the defendant’s claim that his plea was involuntary and the result of incorrect legal advice. See Bond v. State, 695 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

We affirm the trial court’s order on authority of Major v. State, 790 So.2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA), review granted, 797 So.2d 586 (Fla.2001), and certify, as we did in Major, the following question of great public importance:

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT OR COUNSEL HAVE A DUTY TO ADVISE A DEFENDANT THAT HIS PLEA IN A PENDING CASE MAY HAVE SENTENCE ENHANCING CONSEQUENCES IF THE DEFENDANT COMMITS A NEW CRIME IN THE FUTURE?

Affirmed; question certified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Armando Ramirez Albo, (“defendant”), appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, claiming he entered into a plea of nolo contendere involuntarily.

Defendant contends that his plea should be set aside because counsel and the trial court failed to advise him that his 1992 conviction could be used against him in a subsequent proceeding to enhance any future sentence for a future crime. The trial court denied defendant’s postconviction motion because the record conclusively refuted the defendant’s claim that his plea was involuntary and the result of incorrect legal advice. See Bond v. State, 695 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

We affirm the trial court’s order on authority of Major v. State, 790 So.2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA), review granted, 797 So.2d 586 (Fla.2001), and certify, as we did in Major, the following question of great public importance:

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT OR COUNSEL HAVE A DUTY TO ADVISE A DEFENDANT THAT HIS PLEA IN A PENDING CASE MAY HAVE SENTENCE ENHANCING CONSEQUENCES IF THE DEFENDANT COMMITS A NEW CRIME IN THE FUTURE?

Affirmed; question certified.

Albo v. State, 808 So. 2d 1275, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2396, 2002 WL 341831 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

808 So. 2d 1275 (Albo v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related