Savoury v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Savoury v. State

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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 18, 2002

DocketNo. 2D02-73

StatusPublished

This text of 831 So. 2d 222 (Savoury 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

831 So. 2d 222, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15187, 2002 WL 31323438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/savoury-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack