Gilchrist v. State
898 So. 2d 1210, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5226, 2005 WL 856124
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Gilchrist v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 938 So. 2d 654 →
Opinion
Affirmed. See Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173 (Fla.2001); Alexander v. State, 830 So.2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Brown v. State, 827 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); McGee v. State, 684 So.2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). As this court did in Alexander, 830 So.2d at 899-900, 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Gilchrist v. State, 898 So. 2d 1210, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5226, 2005 WL 856124 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).
898 So. 2d 1210 (Gilchrist v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Alexander v. State
830 So. 2d 899 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Carter v. State
786 So. 2d 1173 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2001)
Brown v. State
827 So. 2d 1054 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
McGee v. State
684 So. 2d 241 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)