Coleman v. State

861 So. 2d 1213, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18749, 2003 WL 22900408
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 10, 2003
DocketNo. 2D03-2688
StatusPublished

This text of 861 So. 2d 1213 (Coleman v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

Related

Alexander v. State
830 So. 2d 899 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
861 So. 2d 1213, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18749, 2003 WL 22900408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.