Cook v. State

903 So. 2d 1008, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8278, 2005 WL 1307794

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cook v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 896 So. 2d 870 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 3, 2005·No. No. 2D05-781·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

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

Affirmed; question certified.

KELLY, VILLANTI, and WALLACE, 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, we certify the same question of great public importance:

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

Affirmed; question certified.

KELLY, VILLANTI, and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

Cook v. State, 903 So. 2d 1008, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8278, 2005 WL 1307794 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

903 So. 2d 1008 (Cook v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Alexander v. State

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

Opinion

Related