Case Name: Joe FUSSELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-10-16
Citations: 828 So. 2d 441
Docket Number: No. 2D01-3408
Parties: Joe FUSSELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: ALTENBERND, WHATLEY, and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 828
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
Joe FUSSELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 2D01-3408.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Oct. 16, 2002.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Joe Fussell 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, Fussell 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 Fussell in his motion.
ALTENBERND, WHATLEY, and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.