SUAREZ V. STATE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2001 RAFAEL SUAREZ, ** Appellant, ** vs. ** CASE NO. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. Appellee. 3D01-2034 92-2742 ** Opinion filed October 31, 2001. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro Echarte, Judge. Rafael Suarez, in proper person. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and SORONDO, and RAMIREZ, JJ. ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING, CLARIFICATION, CERTIFICATION OR REHEARING EN BANC PER CURIAM. We grant the motion for rehearing and deny the motion for clarification. 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 HAS 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? 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.