Coleman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Coleman v. State

861 So. 2d 1213, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18749, 2003 WL 22900408

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Coleman v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 898 So. 2d 997 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 10, 2003·No. No. 2D03-2688·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Alexander v. State, 830 So.2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). As this court did in Alexander, 830 So.2d at 899-900, we certify the same question of great public importance, to wit:

WHETHER ALLEGATIONS OF AFFIRMATIVE MISADVICE BY TRIAL COUNSEL ON THE SENTENCE ENHANCING CONSEQUENCES OF A DEFENDANT’S PLEA FOR FUTURE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IN AN OTHERWISE FACIALLY SUFFICIENT MOTION ARE COGNIZABLE AS AN INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIM.

Affirmed; question certified.

COVINGTON, CANADY, and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Alexander v. State, 830 So.2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). As this court did in Alexander, 830 So.2d at 899-900, we certify the same question of great public importance, to wit:

WHETHER ALLEGATIONS OF AFFIRMATIVE MISADVICE BY TRIAL COUNSEL ON THE SENTENCE ENHANCING CONSEQUENCES OF A DEFENDANT’S PLEA FOR FUTURE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IN AN OTHERWISE FACIALLY SUFFICIENT MOTION ARE COGNIZABLE AS AN INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIM.

Affirmed; question certified.

COVINGTON, CANADY, and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

Coleman v. State, 861 So. 2d 1213, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18749, 2003 WL 22900408 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

861 So. 2d 1213 (Coleman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related