Case Name: Collie Roland PETE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-01-16
Citations: 805 So. 2d 1049
Docket Number: No. 4D01-4712
Parties: Collie Roland PETE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ„ concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 805
Pages: 1049–1050

Head Matter:
Collie Roland PETE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4D01-4712.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jan. 16, 2002.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 19, 2002.
Collie Roland Pete, Coleman, pro se.
No appearance required for appellee.

Opinion:
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 Major v. State, 790 So.2d 550, 552 (Fla. 3d 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?
WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ" concur.