Case Name: Rubin LONG, a/k/a Olusequn B. Falodun, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-01-28
Citations: 803 So. 2d 913
Docket Number: No. 3D01-2496
Parties: Rubin LONG, a/k/a Olusequn B. Falodun, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before JORGENSON, GODERICH, and FLETCHER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 803
Pages: 913–914

Head Matter:
Rubin LONG, a/k/a Olusequn B. Falodun, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D01-2496.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan. 28, 2002.
Rubin Long, a/k/a Olusequn B. Falodun, in proper person.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Thomas C. Mielke, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before JORGENSON, GODERICH, and FLETCHER, JJ.

Opinion:
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
We grant Rubin Long a/k/a Olusequn B. Falodun's motion for rehearing, withdraw our prior opinion and substitute the following opinion.
We affirm the trial court's order denying post-conviction relief. 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?
Affirmed; question certified.