Gonzalez v. State

Full title: JOSE GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Oct 3, 2001

795 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

Case No. 3D01-1605

Opinion filed October 3, 2001.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2)from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Richard G. Payne, Judge. Lower Tribunal No. 85-578.

Jose Gonzalez, in proper person.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LEVY and SHEVIN, JJ., and NESBITT, Senior Judge.

ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

We deny the motions for rehearing and clarification; however, as inMajor 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.¹

1 See Bismark v. State, ___ So.2d ___, 2001 WL 1041747 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 12, 2001) (requesting that the Florida Supreme Court accept jurisdiction for immediate resolution of this issue).