Case ID: so2d_807/html/0145-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David DOCKERY, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D01-4801.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Jan. 30, 2002.
    David Dockery, Sr., Atlanta, Georgia, pro se.
    No appearance required for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s petition for writ of error coram nobis, 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), rev. granted, 797 So.2d 586 (Fla.2001):

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT OR COUNSEL HAVE A DUTY TO ADVISE A DEFENDANT THAT HIS PLEA IN A PENDING CASE MAY HAVE SENTENCING ENHANCING CONSEQUENCES IF THE DEFENDANT COMMITS A NEW CRIME IN THE FUTURE?

See also Stretcher v. State, 803 So.2d 813 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec. 19, 2001).

POLEN, C.J., GUNTHER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.