Pete v. State
805 So. 2d 1049, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 229, 2002 WL 54614
Opinion
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 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?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pete v. State, 805 So. 2d 1049, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 229, 2002 WL 54614 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).
805 So. 2d 1049 (Pete v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Major v. State
790 So. 2d 550 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)