KENNETH HAYDEN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
KENNETH HAYDEN, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
841 So. 2d 580
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2003)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Kenneth Hayden 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, Hayden alleged that his plea was involuntary because defense counsel affirmatively misadvised him that his conviction could not be used in the future as a prior offense for sentencing purposes. 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.
Affirmed, question certified.
SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murph v. State, 886 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ble jeopardy because the enhancement of his sentence contains two punishments for one criminal episode. This claim is facially insufficient because Murph failed to explain the enhancement of his sentence and the two punishments. See Powell v. State, 841 So. 2d 580, 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (affirming the denial of a rule 3.800(a) claim where the defendant failed to explain the basis of his claim). A motion to correct illegal sentence that does not assert any facts or law to support a claim for relief is faciall…
Authorities Cited
- Stansel v. State, 825 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)