Lattimore v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lattimore v. State

828 So. 2d 442, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15114, 2002 WL 31306658

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 16, 2002

DocketNo. 2D01-4167

StatusPublished

This text of 828 So. 2d 442 (Lattimore 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

Lattimore v. State, 828 So. 2d 442, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15114, 2002 WL 31306658 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Sylvester Lattimore 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, Lattimore alleged that his plea was involuntary because defense counsel affirmatively misadvised him regarding the future sentencing-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. We affirm, without discussion, any other issues raised by Lattimore in his motion.

ALTENBERND, WHATLEY, and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Sylvester Lattimore 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, Lattimore alleged that his plea was involuntary because defense counsel affirmatively misadvised him regarding the future sentencing-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. We affirm, without discussion, any other issues raised by Lattimore in his motion.

ALTENBERND, WHATLEY, and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

828 So. 2d 442, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15114, 2002 WL 31306658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lattimore-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack