Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Stretcher v. State

Stretcher v. State

803 So. 2d 813, 2001 WL 1614138
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 19, 2001·No. 4D01-2943·Published·Cited by 18 cases

Opinion

803 So.2d 813 (2001)

Lester STRETCHER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D01-2943.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

December 19, 2001.

Lester Stretcher, Atlanta, Georgia, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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?

KLEIN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

Stretcher v. State, 803 So. 2d 813, 2001 WL 1614138 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

803 So. 2d 813 (Stretcher v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Love v. State
814 So. 2d 475 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Cruz v. State
810 So. 2d 1017 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Jackson v. State
811 So. 2d 765 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Bush v. State
813 So. 2d 974 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
McCall v. State
810 So. 2d 995 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Williams v. State
810 So. 2d 985 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Doyle v. State
806 So. 2d 622 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Washington v. State
810 So. 2d 972 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Dockery v. State
807 So. 2d 145 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Hampton v. State
803 So. 2d 813 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)