Stretcher v. State

Lester STRETCHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 19, 2001.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2001-12-19

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently May 2003

18 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“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?”

quoted by 5 later decisions, including Dockery v. State, Doyle v. State

Relies on 790 So. 2d 550 - Major v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-12-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Lester Stretcher, Atlanta, Georgia, pro se.

¶2No appearance required for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4We 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):

¶5WHETHER 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?

¶6KLEIN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.