From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McNulty v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 18, 2002
831 So. 2d 221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Summary

certifying the same question as in Bates

Summary of this case from Bates v. State

Opinion

Case No. 2D01-4490.

Opinion filed October 18, 2002. Rehearing Denied November 22, 2002.

Appeal pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Nancy Moate Ley, Judge.


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, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D1947 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 28, 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.


Summaries of

McNulty v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 18, 2002
831 So. 2d 221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

certifying the same question as in Bates

Summary of this case from Bates v. State
Case details for

McNulty v. State

Case Details

Full title:MICKY WILLIAM McNULTY, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Oct 18, 2002

Citations

831 So. 2d 221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Citing Cases

Bates v. State

For example, several cases are pending in this Court raising the same issue, either because the district…