Dockery v. State
807 So. 2d 145, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 716, 2002 WL 113550
This text of 807 So. 2d 145 (Dockery 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
Dockery v. State, 807 So. 2d 145, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 716, 2002 WL 113550 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).
Opinion
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]*146WHETHER 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).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Major v. State
790 So. 2d 550 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Stretcher v. State
803 So. 2d 813 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
807 So. 2d 145, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 716, 2002 WL 113550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dockery-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.