Washington v. State
Washington v. State
810 So. 2d 972; 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2925; 2002 WL 180878
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Washington v. State
Opinion of the Court
As we did in Stretcher v. State, 803 So.2d 813 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), 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, 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001):
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT OR COUNSEL HAVE A DUTY TO ADVISE A DEPENDANT 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.