Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

834 So. 2d 224

Mason 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.

¶1Perry Dean Mason 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, Mason 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 Stansel. We affirm, without discussion, any other issues raised by Mason in his motion.

ALTENBERND, WHATLEY, and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.
/834/so2d/224 · .json · Public domain