Case ID: so2d_898/html/1210-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Immanuel GILCHRIST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 2D05-56.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    April 15, 2005.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173 (Fla.2001); Alexander v. State, 830 So.2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Brown v. State, 827 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); McGee v. State, 684 So.2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). As this court did in Alexander, 830 So.2d at 899-900, we certify the same question of great public importance:

ARE ALLEGATIONS OF AFFIRMATIVE MISADVICE BY TRIAL COUNSEL ABOUT THE SENTENCE ENHANCING CONSEQUENCES OF A DEFENDANT’S PLEA FOR FUTURE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IN AN OTHERWISE FACIALLY SUFFICIENT MOTION COGNIZABLE AS AN INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIM?

Affirmed; question certified.

DAVIS, KELLY, and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.