From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bethune v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
May 24, 2000
774 So. 2d 4 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Summary

finding timely a claim filed within two years after the defendant learned of the potential habitual offender enhancement

Summary of this case from Ey v. State

Opinion

No. 2D99-4115

Opinion filed May 24, 2000

Appeal pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(i) from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County; Cynthia A. Ellis, Judge.


Tony Ray Bethune appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Bethune claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea of nolo contendere was involuntary due to trial counsel's failure to inform him of the potential future sentence-enhancing consequences of his plea, should Bethune receive a subsequent conviction. The trial court denied the motion, finding it was untimely and not subject to an exception to the two-year time limit for filing rule 3.850 motions. We affirm, but on different grounds than those expressed in the trial court's order.

Bethune filed his motion within two years of the date he learned of the potential for imposition of a habitual offender sentence as a result of his earlier conviction resulting from his plea. Based upon Peart v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S271 (Fla. Apr. 13, 2000), decided after the trial court entered its order, we find the motion was timely filed. Nevertheless, we affirm.

Trial counsel need only advise a defendant of direct consequences of a plea. See State v. Ginebra, 511 So.2d 960 (Fla. 1987), superseded on other grounds by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172; State v. De Abreu, 613 So.2d 453, 453 (1993) (holding "In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 536 So.2d 992 (Fla. 1988) . . . supersede[s] Ginebra to the extent of any inconsistency"). Counsel is not required to inform his client of potential sentence-enhancing consequences of his plea because it is a collateral consequence. See Rhodes v. State, 701 So.2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Thus, failure to do so cannot substantiate an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.Id. at 389. Similarly, as a collateral consequence, use of a conviction to enhance a future sentence does not render a plea involuntary. See Sherwood v. State, 743 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Therefore, the trial court's order is affirmed.

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FULMER and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Bethune v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
May 24, 2000
774 So. 2d 4 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

finding timely a claim filed within two years after the defendant learned of the potential habitual offender enhancement

Summary of this case from Ey v. State

finding timely a claim filed within two years after the defendant learned of the potential habitual offender enhancement

Summary of this case from ROBERT EY v. STATE

In Bethune, the Second District Court of Appeal noted that the defendant's motion to withdraw his nolo contendere plea as involuntary for failure of his counsel to inform him of the potential sentencing-enhancing consequences of his plea was not untimely because he filed his motion within two years of the date he learned of the potential for the imposition of a habitual offender sentence.

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

Bethune v. State

Case Details

Full title:TONY RAY BETHUNE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: May 24, 2000

Citations

774 So. 2d 4 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Citing Cases

Bismark v. State

The trial court found that the motion was timely pursuant to Wood but summarily denied it on its merits.…

Wilson v. State

Thus, trial counsel's alleged failure to advise Wilson of the potential sentence-enhancing effect of his plea…