From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pete v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jan 16, 2002
805 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Opinion

Case No. 4D01-4712

Opinion filed January 16, 2002 Rehearing Denied February 19, 2002

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Marc H. Gold, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 89-2955CF10C, 90-19713CF10A 93-15590CF10A.

Collie Roland Pete, Coleman, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.


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?

WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pete v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jan 16, 2002
805 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
Case details for

Pete v. State

Case Details

Full title:COLLIE ROLAND PETE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Jan 16, 2002

Citations

805 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)