Case Name: Rafael SUAREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-10-31
Citations: 797 So. 2d 654
Docket Number: No. 3D01-2034
Parties: Rafael SUAREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and SORONDO, and RAMIREZ, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 797
Pages: 654–654

Head Matter:
Rafael SUAREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D01-2034.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct. 31, 2001.
Rafael Suarez, in proper person.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and SORONDO, and RAMIREZ, JJ.

Opinion:
ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING, CLARIFICATION, CERTIFICATION OR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM.
We grant the motion for rehearing and deny the motion for clarification. 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 HAS 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?