Case Name: David DOCKERY, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-01-30
Citations: 807 So. 2d 145
Docket Number: No. 4D01-4801
Parties: David DOCKERY, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: POLEN, C.J., GUNTHER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 807
Pages: 145–146

Head Matter:
David DOCKERY, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4D01-4801.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jan. 30, 2002.
David Dockery, Sr., Atlanta, Georgia, pro se.
No appearance required for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the denial of appellant's petition for writ of error coram nobis, 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), rev. granted, 797 So.2d 586 (Fla.2001):
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT OR COUNSEL HAVE A DUTY TO ADVISE A DEFENDANT THAT HIS PLEA IN A PENDING CASE MAY HAVE SENTENCING ENHANCING CONSEQUENCES IF THE DEFENDANT COMMITS A NEW CRIME IN THE FUTURE?
See also Stretcher v. State, 803 So.2d 813 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec. 19, 2001).
POLEN, C.J., GUNTHER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.