Manning v. State

Full title: PHYNERRIAN MANNING, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Apr 3, 2002

Case No. 4D02-718 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2002)

Opinion

Case No. 4D02-718.

Opinion filed April 3, 2002.

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Jack H. Cook, Judge; L.T. Case No. 92-14148 CFB02.

Phynerrian Manning, Marianna, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

As we did in Stretcher v. State, 803 So.2d 813 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), 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, 553 (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?

FARMER, KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.