History
  • No items yet
midpage
McNulty v. State
831 So. 2d 221
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
2002
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

Micky William McNulty 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, 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 Stansel We affirm, without discussion, any other issues raised by McNulty in his motion.

ALTENBERND, WHATLEY, and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: McNulty v. State
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Oct 18, 2002
Citation: 831 So. 2d 221
Docket Number: No. 2D01-4490
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.