Hayden v. State

841 So. 2d 580, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4052, 2003 WL 1523332
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 26, 2003
DocketNo. 2D02-3468
StatusPublished

This text of 841 So. 2d 580 (Hayden 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
Hayden v. State, 841 So. 2d 580, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4052, 2003 WL 1523332 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Kenneth Hayden challenges the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm. In his motion, Hayden alleged that his plea was involuntary because defense counsel affirmatively misadvised him that his conviction could not be used in the future as a prior offense 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, question certified.

SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

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

Related

Stansel v. State
825 So. 2d 1007 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
841 So. 2d 580, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4052, 2003 WL 1523332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayden-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.