Barrios-Cruz v. State
63 So. 3d 868
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Barrios-Cruz pleaded guilty in 2004 to discharging a firearm in public with probation; pleaded guilty in 2006 to possession of drug paraphernalia and maintaining a structure for drug use with probation.
- In 2010 Barrios-Cruz, through counsel, moved for postconviction relief under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850, alleging ineffective assistance for not warning about deportation consequences and that the 2006 plea colloquy failed to advise on deportation.
- He argued Padilla v. Kentucky should be applied retroactively to extend the time for filing 3.850 motions.
- Florida courts had not resolved Padilla's retroactivity; the Second District held Padilla should not be retroactive in postconviction proceedings, agreeing with Hernandez v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
- The court certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court regarding retroactive application of Padilla.
- Barrios-Cruz's motions were denied as untimely; the court upheld the Green standard for time extensions and held Padilla did not apply retroactively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla applies retroactively in postconviction relief. | Barrios-Cruz relies on Padilla to toll 3.850 deadlines. | State argues Padilla not retroactive under Witt framework. | Padilla not retroactive in postconviction proceedings. |
| Whether Padilla’s retroactivity would affect timeliness under Green/3.850. | Barrios-Cruz argues extended time under Green. | State contends Green does not require application for Padilla. | Retroactivity rejected; motions untimely under Green framework. |
| Whether the Witt three-factor test supports retroactive application. | Padilla is a fundamental change deserving retroactivity. | Padilla is a procedural refinement with limited reach. | Witt factors weigh against retroactive application. |
| Whether the court should certify a question to the Florida Supreme Court. | Potential public importance. | Not necessary if retroactivity is resolved. | Question certified to Florida Supreme Court. |
| Whether the postconviction court correctly denied relief for untimeliness. | Motions timely under Padilla. | Untimely under Green criteria. | Affirmed; motions untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla.1980) (retroactivity standards for new rules in Florida)
- Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) (triad for retroactivity factors (purpose, reliance, administration))
- Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (1965) (three-factor consideration for retroactivity)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (scope of Apprendi and retroactivity considerations)
- Hughes v. State, 901 So. 2d 837 (Fla.2005) (retroactivity of Apprendi in Florida context)
- State v. Fleming, 61 So. 3d 399 (Fla.2011) (Florida adopts Witt-style retroactivity analysis for new rules)
- Flores v. State, 57 So. 3d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (Padilla-related prejudice considerations after reliance on plea advisement)
- State v. Green, 944 So. 2d 208 (Fla.2006) (timing dynamics under Green for postconviction claims)
- Hernandez v. State, 61 So. 3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (Florida Third District on Padilla retroactivity)
- In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 536 So. 2d 992 (Fla.1988) (plea colloquy deportation advisement requirement)