Case ID: so2d_795/html/1096-01.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

Jose GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D01-1605.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Oct. 3, 2001.
    Jose Gonzalez, Fort Lauderdale, in proper person.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, for appellee.
    Before LEVY and SHEVIN, JJ., and NESBITT, Senior Judge.
   ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

We deny the motions for rehearing and clarification; however, 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 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?

Motions denied; and question certified. 
      
      . See Bismark v. State, 796 So.2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(requesting that the Florida Supreme Court accept jurisdiction for immediate resolution of this issue).