Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2001

Gonzalez v. State

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided October 3, 2001 · Levy, Nesbitt, Shevin

795 So. 2d 1096; 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13844; 2001 WL 1159635 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Parker v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.