Suarez v. State
Suarez v. State
797 So. 2d 654; 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15236; 2001 WL 1335058
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Suarez v. State
Opinion of the Court
ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING, CLARIFICATION, CERTIFICATION OR REHEARING EN BANC
We grant the motion for rehearing and deny the motion for clarification. 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 HAS 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?
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.