Hanson v. State
839 So. 2d 859, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3114, 2003 WL 1030045
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 12, 2003·No. No. 2D02-3665·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
Oscar Hanson challenges the order of the trial court summarily denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.
In his motion, Hanson alleged that his pleas were involuntary because trial counsel affirmatively misadvised him that the convictions could not be used in the future as prior offenses for sentencing purposes. In Stansel v. State, 825 So.2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), we held that this claim is not cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion. We certify the same question that we certified in Stansel.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hanson v. State, 839 So. 2d 859, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3114, 2003 WL 1030045 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).
839 So. 2d 859 (Hanson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Bates v. State
887 So. 2d 1214 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2004)