among other things, the nature of the charge, any mandatory minimum penalty, and the maximum possible penalty. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.172(c)(1). However, in determining that a defendant understands the consequences of his plea, the judge is not required to inform a defendant of the collateral consequences of his plea, but only of the direct consequences of it. See, e.g., State v. Fox, 659 So.2d 1324, 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The determination of whether a consequence of a plea is direct or collateral “ ‘turns on whether the result represents a definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on the range of the defendant’s punishment.’ ” Zambuto v. State, 413 So.2d 461, 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (quoting Cuthrell v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 475 F.2d 1364, 1366 (4th Cir.1973) (<HOLDING>)). We agree with the state that the effects of
holding that probation does not constitute a sentence holding that enhancement of sentence after violation of probation was collateral rather than direct consequence of plea holding that the sanction of deportation is a collateral not direct consequence of a guilty plea holding that probation is not a sentence holding that an enhancement in a future sentence based on the present conviction is a collateral consequence and need not be advised of by the district court in its plea colloquy