Hanson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hanson v. State

839 So. 2d 859, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3114, 2003 WL 1030045

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 2003

DocketNo. 2D02-3665

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 839 So. 2d 859 (Hanson 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

Hanson v. State, 839 So. 2d 859, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3114, 2003 WL 1030045 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

STRINGER, Judge.

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.

NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

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