WAYNE DAVID SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Wayne David Smith appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The court affirmed denial of his Padilla claim regarding deportation advisement but reversed and remanded for consideration of his other ineffective assistance claims.
Padilla v. Kentucky does not apply retroactively in postconviction proceedings to convictions that were final before March 31, 2010. However, the postconviction court must address Smith's remaining claims that are unrelated to Padilla on remand.
[1] The ruling in Padilla v. …
[2] A court must address all claims raised in a motion for postconviction relief, not just those related to a specific legal precedent.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“when eligibility for deportation as the result of a guilty plea is clear, counsel must advise the defendant accordingly”
Establishes the Padilla standard requiring counsel to advise clients about deportation consequences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn January 2010, Smith pleaded guilty to two counts of lewd fondling and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment followed by four years' probation. I…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Retroactivity Of Judicial Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
Wayne David Smith appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which he raised several related claims. We affirm the postconviction court’s denial of Smith’s motion with respect to his claim based on Padilla, v. Kentucky, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010). However, we reverse and remand for the post-conviction court to consider Smith’s other claims.
In January 2010, Smith pleaded guilty to two counts of lewd fondling and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment followed by four years’ probation. In January 2011, as a response to the initiation of deportation proceedings, he filed the current motion pursuant to rule 3.850, in which he raised one long stream of allegations. First, Smith alleged that his counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that he would be deported as a result of his plea. See Padilla, 130 S.Ct. at 1483 (holding that when eligibility for deportation as the result of a guilty plea is clear, counsel must advise the defendant accordingly). Smith’s motion continued with several other allegations in support of his argument that no valid plea was ever entered in his case. In denying Smith’s motion in its entirety, the postconviction court simply found that Smith’s sentence became final in February 2010 and that Padilla does not apply retroactively; i.e., it “does not apply to Florida defendants whose convictions already were final as of March 31, 2010, when that case was decided.” Hernandez v. State, 61 So.3d 1144, 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
We affirm the postconviction court’s finding with respect to Smith’s Padilla claim. See Barrios-Cruz v. State, 63 So.3d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). As in Barrios-Cruz, 63 So.3d at 870, we hold that Padilla, 130 S.Ct. 1473, does not apply retroactively in postconviction proceedings and we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question of great public importance pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v):
SHOULD THE RULING IN PADILLA V. KENTUCKY, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010), BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY IN POSTCONVICTION PROCEEDINGS?
However, because the postconviction court neglected to address any other aspect of Smith’s motion, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to consider all of Smith’s claims that are unrelated to Padilla.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
DAVIS and CRENSHAW, 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)