Stretcher v. State, 803 So. 2d 813

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of appellant‘s rule 3.850 motion and certify as a question of great public importance the same question certified in Major v. State, 790 So.2d 550, 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001):

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT OR COUNSEL HAVE A DUTY TO ADVISE A DEFENDANT THAT HIS PLEA IN A PENDING CASE MAY HAVE SENTENCE ENHANCING CONSEQUENCES IF THE DEFENDANT COMMITS A NEW CRIME IN THE FUTURE?

KLEIN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Stretcher v. State

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Dec 19, 2001

Citations: 803 So. 2d 813; 2001 WL 1614138; 4D01-2943

Docket Number: 4D01-2943

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.