¶1Affirmed. Major v. State, 790 So.2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
¶2On Motion for Certification
¶3PER CURIAM.
¶4We grant the motion for certification. Defendant-appellant Romeo entered a plea in 1995. He filed a motion for postconviction relief which is timely under Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999). In it he alleges that he should be granted postcon-viction relief because his counsel never advised him that his plea could constitute a prior offense in a subsequent proceeding, and that if he had been so advised, he would have gone to trial.
¶5The trial court denied postconvietion relief and we affirmed on authority of Major v. State, 790 So.2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Defendant filed a timely motion for certification, which we grant.
¶6As we did in Major, 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?
¶7Certification granted.