Sanchez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sanchez v. State

806 So. 2d 564, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 224, 2002 WL 54597

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 16, 2002

DocketNo. 4D01-4114

StatusPublished

This text of 806 So. 2d 564 (Sanchez 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

Sanchez v. State, 806 So. 2d 564, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 224, 2002 WL 54597 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

As we did in Stretcher v. State, 01-2943 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), 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 (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?

GUNTHER, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

As we did in Stretcher v. State, 01-2943 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), 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 (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?

GUNTHER, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

806 So. 2d 564, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 224, 2002 WL 54597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack