Case ID: so2d_810/html/0985-02.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

Travis WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D01-3353.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Feb. 13, 2002.
    Rehearing Denied April 4, 2002.
    Travis Williams, Miami, 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 Stretcher v. State, 803 So.2d 813 (Fla. 4th 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?

POLEN, C.J., STONE and KLEIN, JJ., concur.