Pete v. State
805 So. 2d 1049, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 229, 2002 WL 54614
This text of 805 So. 2d 1049 (Pete 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
Pete v. State, 805 So. 2d 1049, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 229, 2002 WL 54614 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).
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
Related
Major v. State
790 So. 2d 550 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
805 So. 2d 1049, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 229, 2002 WL 54614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pete-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.