ABRAHAM DE PINILLO MARTINEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Retroactivity Of Judicial Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND WRITTEN OPINION
We deny Appellant’s motion for rehearing, but withdraw our previous per curiam opinion dated June 14, 2011, and substitute the following opinion in its place.
AFFIRMED. See Santiago v. State, 65 So.3d 575 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); see also Hernandez v. State, 61 So.3d 1144, 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding, inter alia, that the decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), should not be applied retroactively, while certifying the question as one of great public importance); accord Barrios-Cruz v. State, 63 So.3d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). We join the Second and Third District in certifying the following question as a question of great public importance:
SHOULD THE RULING IN Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY IN POSTCONVICTION PROCEEDINGS?
SAWAYA, TORPY, COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010)
- Hernandez v. State, 61 So. 3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Edilberto Barrios-Cruz v. State, 63 So. 3d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Raymundo Santiago v. State, 65 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)