Doyle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Doyle v. State

807 So. 2d 173, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1388, 2002 WL 215354

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 13, 2002·No. No. 4D01-4910·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order summarily denying appellant’s motion for postconviction relief, seeking to vacate his conviction based on the alleged involuntariness of his plea. See Stretcher v. State, 803 So.2d 813 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). As we did in Stretcher, we certify the same question certified in Major v. State, 790 So.2d 550, 552 (Fla. 3d 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?

WARNER, KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order summarily denying appellant’s motion for postconviction relief, seeking to vacate his conviction based on the alleged involuntariness of his plea. See Stretcher v. State, 803 So.2d 813 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). As we did in Stretcher, we certify the same question certified in Major v. State, 790 So.2d 550, 552 (Fla. 3d 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?

WARNER, KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Doyle v. State, 807 So. 2d 173, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1388, 2002 WL 215354 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

807 So. 2d 173 (Doyle v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related