Case Name: Jose GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-10-03
Citations: 795 So. 2d 1096
Docket Number: No. 3D01-1605
Parties: Jose GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before LEVY and SHEVIN, JJ., and NESBITT, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 795
Pages: 1096–1096

Head Matter:
Jose GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D01-1605.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct. 3, 2001.
Jose Gonzalez, Fort Lauderdale, in proper person.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LEVY and SHEVIN, JJ., and NESBITT, Senior Judge.

Opinion:
ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION
PER CURIAM.
We deny the motions for rehearing and clarification; however, 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 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?
Motions denied; and question certified.
. See Bismark v. State, 796 So.2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(requesting that the Florida Supreme Court accept jurisdiction for immediate resolution of this issue).