Gonzalez v. State

Florida District Courts of Appeal
Gonzalez v. State, 795 So. 2d 1096 (2001)
2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13844; 2001 WL 1159635
Levy, Nesbitt, Shevin

Gonzalez v. State

Opinion of the Court

ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

We deny the motions for rehearing and clarification; however, as in Major v. State, 790 So.2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), we certify that we have passed on the following question of great public importance:

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?

Motions denied; and question certified.1

. See Bismark v. State, 796 So.2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(requesting that the Florida Supreme Court accept jurisdiction for immediate resolution of this issue).

Reference

Full Case Name
Jose GONZALEZ v. The STATE of Florida
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published