Suarez v. State
797 So. 2d 654, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15236, 2001 WL 1335058
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Suarez v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 879 So. 2d 1251 →
Opinion
ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING, CLARIFICATION, CERTIFICATION OR REHEARING EN BANC
We grant the motion for rehearing and deny the motion for clarification. As in Major v. State, 790 So.2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), we certify that we have passed on the following question of great public importance:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT OR COUNSEL HAS 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
Suarez v. State, 797 So. 2d 654, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15236, 2001 WL 1335058 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).
797 So. 2d 654 (Suarez 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)