Case ID: so2d_911/html/0216-01.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

James A. LEDFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 2D05-2972.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Sept. 23, 2005.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Bolender v. State, 658 So.2d 82 (Fla.1995); 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, 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.

CASANUEVA, SALCINES, and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.