Harrison v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harrison v. State

837 So. 2d 598, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1578, 2003 WL 327656

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Harrison v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8149 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 14, 2003·No. No. 2D02-3646·Published

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Johnny Harrison challenges the trial court’s order summarily denying his mo[599]*599tion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.

In his motion, Harrison alleged that his plea was involuntary because defense counsel affirmatively misadvised him regarding the future sentence enhancing effects of the plea in regard to an as yet uncommitted crime. 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.

WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ„ Concur.

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

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Johnny Harrison challenges the trial court’s order summarily denying his mo[599]*599tion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.

In his motion, Harrison alleged that his plea was involuntary because defense counsel affirmatively misadvised him regarding the future sentence enhancing effects of the plea in regard to an as yet uncommitted crime. 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.

WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ„ Concur.

Harrison v. State, 837 So. 2d 598, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1578, 2003 WL 327656 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

837 So. 2d 598 (Harrison v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related