Case Name: Joe WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-02-06
Citations: 810 So. 2d 972
Docket Number: No. 4D02-195
Parties: Joe WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SHAHOOD, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 810
Pages: 972–972

Head Matter:
Joe WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4D02-195.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Feb. 6, 2002.
Rehearing Denied March 28, 2002.
Joe Washington, Marianna, pro se.
No appearance required for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
As we did in Stretcher v. State, 803 So.2d 813 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), 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 DEPENDANT THAT HIS PLEA IN A PENDING CASE MAY HAVE SENTENCE ENHANCING CONSEQUENCES IF THE DEFENDANT COMMITS A NEW CRIME IN THE FUTURE?
SHAHOOD, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.