Gonzalez v. State (795 So. 2d 1096, 2001)

ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

We deny the motions for rehearing and clarification; however, as in Major 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.

. See Bismark v. State, 796 So.2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(requesting that the Florida Supreme Court accept jurisdiction for immediate resolution of this issue).