Cruz v. State

810 So. 2d 1017, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2368, 2002 WL 342088

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cruz v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 744 So. 2d 568 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 6, 2002·No. No. 4D01-4415·Published

Opinion

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 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?

SHAHOOD, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 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?

SHAHOOD, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cruz v. State, 810 So. 2d 1017, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2368, 2002 WL 342088 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

810 So. 2d 1017 (Cruz v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Stretcher v. State

803 So. 2d 813 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)

Opinion

Related