been discovered) at the time of the sentencing. Here, Bates’ future criminal activity was unknown (or could not have been known with absolute certainty). Enhancement depended on whether Bates decided to commit another crime in the future; it is a contingency that may or may not occur. Leroux and the line of cases following Leroux deal with effects of the plea that are certain at the time of sentencing. Therefore, these cases are distinguishable from the instant case. We conclude that the Appellant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of his plea where his plea was entered on the alleged misadvice of his defense counsel as to the potential for enhanced penalties for Appellant’s future criminal behavior. See Scott v. State, 813 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, although we find the trial
holding in direct conflict with the second third and fifth districts that allegations of affirmative misadvice by trial counsel on the sentenceenhancing consequences of a defendants plea for future criminal behavior in an otherwise facially sufficient motion are cognizable as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim holding that for a facially sufficient claim that the plea was involuntary based on misadvice of counsel defendant must allege he would not have accepted the plea agreement but for the misadvice holding that neither the trial court nor defense counsel has any duty to advise a defendant entering a plea that the plea may have sentencing enhancing consequences on a sentence imposed for a crime committed in the future holding that a defendant is not entitled to relief where he has been given affirmative misadvice regarding the possible sentenceenhancing consequences of a plea in the event that the defendant commits a new crime in the future holding that a defendant is not entitled to postconviction relief where he has been given affirmative misadvice regarding possible sentence enhancing consequences of the plea in the event that the defendant commits a new crime in the future that is so because the defendant is under a legal duty to refrain from committing further crimes