deny relief on Appellant’s affirmative mis-advice claim. In reaching this conclusion, we recognize that the Florida Supreme Court has recently held that neither the trial court nor counsel has a duty to inform a defendant of the future sentence-enhancing consequences of his plea. Major v. State, 814 So.2d 424 (Fla.2002). However, the Ap pellant in the instant proceedings alleged Wood, we specifically do not reach'any issue not decided by the trial court, including the issue of laches. Wood does not foreclose a laches defense that Appellant discovered counsel's misadviee and could have sought relief at a much earlier time. See Bartz v. State, 740 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). That issue would be subject to an evidentiary hearing. 3 . See State v. Ginebra, 511 So.2d 960, 962 (Fla.1987) (<HOLDING>), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated
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 counsels failure to advise the defendant of the collateral consequences of a guilty plea cannot rise to the level of constitutionally ineffective assistance holding that a defendant must have knowledge of the likely consequences of entering the guilty plea in order for a plea to be voluntary and knowing holding that due process requires that defendant be fully aware of direct consequences of guilty plea holding that an attorney is required to advise a defendant of the direct consequences of a plea and will not be found ineffective for failing to advise of collateral consequences of the plea