context: On the merits, Espinosa is entitled to no relief as a matter of law since neither the trial court nor his defense attorney had an obligation to inform him that state convictions could be used to enhance subsequent federal sentences.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: criminal defendant not entitled to eviden-tiary hearing based upon allegation that his counsel misadvised him as to potential for enhanced penalties for defendant's future criminal behavior
citation_a.sentence: See Ford v. State, 753 So.2d 595, 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (stating that: “neither the defense attorney nor the trial court is duty-bound to anticipate the defendant’s recidivism and warn him of the sentence-enhancing consequences his plea may have for any future crimes he commits, and we conclude that Ford is not entitled to an evidential hearing on the matter.”); see also Rhodes v. State, 701 So.2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (criminal defendant not entitled to eviden-tiary hearing based upon allegation that his counsel misadvised him as to potential for enhanced penalties for defendant’s future criminal behavior).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 753 So.2d 595, 596
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that: "neither the defense attorney nor the trial court is duty-bound to anticipate the defendant's recidivism and warn him of the sentence-enhancing consequences his plea may have for any future crimes he commits, and we conclude that Ford is not entitled to an evidential hearing on the matter."
citation_b.sentence: See Ford v. State, 753 So.2d 595, 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (stating that: “neither the defense attorney nor the trial court is duty-bound to anticipate the defendant’s recidivism and warn him of the sentence-enhancing consequences his plea may have for any future crimes he commits, and we conclude that Ford is not entitled to an evidential hearing on the matter.”); see also Rhodes v. State, 701 So.2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (criminal defendant not entitled to eviden-tiary hearing based upon allegation that his counsel misadvised him as to potential for enhanced penalties for defendant’s future criminal behavior).