Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2002

Pete v. State

Pete v. State
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided January 16, 2002 · Gross, Klein, Warner
805 So. 2d 1049; 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 229; 2002 WL 54614 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Pete v. State

Opinion of the Court

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?

WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ„ concur.

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

↑