EFREN ZAMORA, 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.
The First District Court of Appeal affirmed that Padilla v. Kentucky is not retroactively applicable, joining other Florida district courts in declining to apply the Supreme Court's decision to cases not yet final on direct appeal.
Padilla v. Kentucky does not apply retroactively to convictions that were final before the decision was issued.
[1] Padilla v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEfren Zamora appealed his conviction, raising the question of whether Padilla v. Kentucky, which established that ineffective assistance of counsel cl…
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 Padilla V. Kentucky cases and more on FLexlaw
This case involves the question of whether the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010) should be retroactively applied. Although courts around the country are split on the matter, each of the other four district courts of appeal in Florida has concluded that Padilla is not retroactive in application. See Smith v. State, 85 So.3d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Barrios-Cruz v. State, 63 So.3d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Hernandez v. State, 61 So.3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (certifying question), rev. granted, 81 So.3d 414 (Fla.2012); Santiago v. State, 65 So.3d 575 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
We join the other district courts of appeal in Florida, which have concluded that Padilla is not to be retroactively applied. See e.g., Angel-Bello v. State, 91 So.3d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Barreneche v. State, 80 So.3d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). In joining, we note that our supreme court has accepted jurisdiction in Hernandez to resolve in Florida the rule to be applied. See Hernandez, 61 So.3d 1144, rev. granted, 81 So.3d 414 (Fla.2012). Further, the United States Supreme Court granted cer-tiorari to review the same question, and will hear oral arguments October 30, 2012. See Chaidez v. United States, 655 F.3d 684 (7th Cir.2011), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2101, 182 L.Ed.2d 867 (2012) (No. 11-820).
AFFIRMED.
VAN NORTWICK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Drewery Geter v. State, 115 So. 3d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…the underlying criminal case and preventing the conviction of the innocent.” Id. (citations omitted). Similarly, to date, every other Florida District Court of Appeal has held that Padilla does not have retroactive application. See Zamora v. State, 112 So. 3d 112, (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Smith v. State, 85 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Barrios-Cruz, 63 So. 3d 868; State v. Shaikh, 65 So. 3d 539 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Thus, similarly to Apprendi and Padilla, the Miller “decision constitutes an evolutionary refin…
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)
- Gandy v. State, 81 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 2012)
- Smith v. State, 85 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Raymundo Santiago v. State, 65 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Barreneche v. State, 80 So. 3d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Angel-Bello v. State, 91 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)