Cruz v. State
810 So. 2d 1017, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2368, 2002 WL 342088
This text of 810 So. 2d 1017 (Cruz v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Cruz v. State, 810 So. 2d 1017, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2368, 2002 WL 342088 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).
Opinion
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 Stretcher v. State, 803 So.2d 813 (Fla. 4th 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?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Stretcher v. State
803 So. 2d 813 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
810 So. 2d 1017, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2368, 2002 WL 342088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.