Savoury v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Savoury v. State

831 So. 2d 222, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15187, 2002 WL 31323438

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 18, 2002·No. No. 2D02-73·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Savoury 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, Savoury alleged that his plea was involuntary because defense counsel affirmatively misadvised him regarding the future senteneing-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 Savoury 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.

Daniel Savoury 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, Savoury alleged that his plea was involuntary because defense counsel affirmatively misadvised him regarding the future senteneing-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 Savoury in his motion.

ALTENBERND, WHATLEY, and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.

Savoury v. State, 831 So. 2d 222, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15187, 2002 WL 31323438 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

831 So. 2d 222 (Savoury v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related