Dockery v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dockery v. State

807 So. 2d 145, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 716, 2002 WL 113550

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 30, 2002·No. No. 4D01-4801·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s petition for writ of error coram nobis, 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), rev. granted, 797 So.2d 586 (Fla.2001):

[146] WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT OR COUNSEL HAVE A DUTY TO ADVISE A DEFENDANT THAT HIS PLEA IN A PENDING CASE MAY HAVE SENTENCING ENHANCING CONSEQUENCES IF THE DEFENDANT COMMITS A NEW CRIME IN THE FUTURE?

See also Stretcher v. State, 803 So.2d 813 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec. 19, 2001).

POLEN, C.J., GUNTHER and SHAHOOD, 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 petition for writ of error coram nobis, 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), rev. granted, 797 So.2d 586 (Fla.2001):

[146] WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT OR COUNSEL HAVE A DUTY TO ADVISE A DEFENDANT THAT HIS PLEA IN A PENDING CASE MAY HAVE SENTENCING ENHANCING CONSEQUENCES IF THE DEFENDANT COMMITS A NEW CRIME IN THE FUTURE?

See also Stretcher v. State, 803 So.2d 813 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec. 19, 2001).

POLEN, C.J., GUNTHER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Dockery v. State, 807 So. 2d 145, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 716, 2002 WL 113550 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

807 So. 2d 145 (Dockery v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related