Case Name: Charles R. ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-11-15
Citations: 830 So. 2d 899
Docket Number: No. 2D02-1165
Parties: Charles R. ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: DAVIS and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 830
Pages: 899–900

Head Matter:
Charles R. ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 2D02-1165.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Nov. 15, 2002.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles R. Alexander 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, Alexander alleged that his plea was involuntary because defense counsel affirmatively misadvised him that these convictions could not be used in the future as prior offenses for sentencing purposes. In Stansel v. State, 825 So.2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA-2002), we held that such a claim is not cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion. We certify the same question of great public importance that we certified in Stansel, 825 So.2d at 1010, 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.
DAVIS and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
BLUE, C.J., Concurs with opinion.