Washington v. State
810 So. 2d 972, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2925, 2002 WL 180878
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 6, 2002·No. No. 4D02-195·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
As we did in Stretcher v. State, 803 So.2d 813 (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, 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001):
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT OR COUNSEL HAVE A DUTY TO ADVISE A DEPENDANT 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
Washington v. State, 810 So. 2d 972, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2925, 2002 WL 180878 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).
810 So. 2d 972 (Washington v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Duhart
810 So. 2d 972 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)