Jackson v. State
811 So. 2d 765, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2373, 2002 WL 342134
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Jackson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 744 So. 2d 466 →
Opinion
We affirm the order summarily denying appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 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
Jackson v. State, 811 So. 2d 765, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2373, 2002 WL 342134 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).
811 So. 2d 765 (Jackson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Stretcher v. State
803 So. 2d 813 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)