Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

831 So. 2d 221

McNulty v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 18, 2002

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2002-10-18

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 2004

1 state decisions

Relies on Stansel v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-10-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Micky William McNulty challenges the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.

¶2In his motion, McNulty alleged that his plea was involuntary because defense counsel affirmatively misadvised him regarding the future sentencing-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 StanselWe affirm, without discussion, any other issues raised by McNulty in his motion.

ALTENBERND, WHATLEY, and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.
/831/so2d/221 · .json · Public domain