Case Name: Lester STRETCHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-12-19
Citations: 803 So. 2d 813
Docket Number: No. 4D01-2943
Parties: Lester STRETCHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: KLEIN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 803
Pages: 813–813

Head Matter:
Lester STRETCHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4D01-2943.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Dec. 19, 2001.
Lester Stretcher, Atlanta, Georgia, 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?
KLEIN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.