Hope v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
July Term 2005
DARRYL SOLOMON HOPE,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 4D03-923
[ August 24, 2005 ]
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
We deny appellee’s motion for rehearing, but grant its motion to
certify conflict among the districts. See Stansel v. State, 825 So. 2d 1007
(Fla. 2d DCA 2002), Scott v. State, 813 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002),
McKowen v. State, 831 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). But see Dickey v.
State, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D443 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 15, 2005). Accordingly,
as this court did in Smith v. State, 829 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002),
we certify the following question to be of great public importance:
WHETHER ALLEGATIONS OF AFFIRMATIVE MISADVICE BY
TRIAL COUNSEL ON THE SENTENCE-ENHANCING
CONSEQUENCES OF A DEFENDANT’S PLEA FOR FUTURE
CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IN AN OTHERWISE FACIALLY
SUFFICIENT
MOTION
ARE
COGNIZABLE
AS
AN
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIM.
GUNTHER , SHAHOOD and HAZOURI , JJ., concur.
*
*
*
Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for
the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Ronald J. Rothschild,
Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 88-18554 CF & 89-22865 CF.
Darryl Solomon Hope, Coleman, pro se.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Myra J.
Fried, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
