same Peart issue he has •eviously raised in his 1988 case. The lird District affirmed on October 5, 2001. ;e 3d DCA case docket 3D02-2467. Al-ough Petitioner did not raise any of the me claims in that motion, which he is >w raising, his current Petition is still ne barred. Even if Petitioner’s claims were not ne barred or successive, this Court would also deny Petitioner’s claim based on well established Florida precedent. Although there is conflict among the districts regarding whether affirmative misadvice about collateral consequences of accepting a plea constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel, the Third District Court of Appeal has held that even affirmative misadvice does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See Scott v. State, 813 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). See also Collier v. State,
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 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 misadvice of counsel as to the length of a sentence is a basis for postconviction relief if not refuted by the record holding that the right to counsel in probation revocation proceedings is not absolute where the defendant has been convicted of or has admitted to committing a crime 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