Stretcher v. State

Full title: LESTER STRETCHER, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Dec 19, 2001

803 So. 2d 813 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

Case No. 4D01-2943.

Opinion filed December 19, 2001.

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Howard C. Berman, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 85-1411 CFA02, 85-9653 CFB02, 86-9864 CFA02, 86-11752 CFA02, 87-4710 CFA02, 88-1858 CFA02, 88-1525 CFA02, 89-552 CFA02 and 91-6013 CFA02.

Lester Stretcher, Atlanta, Georgia, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

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.