Hayden v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hayden v. State

841 So. 2d 580, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4052, 2003 WL 1523332

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 26, 2003·No. No. 2D02-3468·Published

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

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.

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

Pincite

841 So. 2d 580 (Hayden v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related