Washington v. State

810 So. 2d 986, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1413, 2002 WL 216430

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Washington v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 737 So. 2d 1208 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 13, 2002·No. No. 4D01-4021·Published

Opinion

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, 553 (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?

STEVENSON, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

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, 553 (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?

STEVENSON, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.

Washington v. State, 810 So. 2d 986, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1413, 2002 WL 216430 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

810 So. 2d 986 (Washington v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Major v. State

790 So. 2d 550 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)

Opinion

Related