Case ID: so2d_861/html/1213-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Donald McCLENDON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 2D03-3471.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Dec. 10, 2003.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Alexander v. State, 830 So.2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Camille v. State, 803 So.2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). As this court did in Alexander, 830 So.2d at 899-900, we certify the same question of great public importance, to wit:

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

Affirmed; question certified.

CANADY, VILLANTI and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.