Castano v. State
65 So. 3d 546
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant Claudia Vergara Castaño timely appeals denial of a Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Castaño pleaded to a charge of child neglect, a third-degree felony, after a child under her care wandered away.
- Her attorney discussed immigration consequences with her; the attorney advised consulting an immigration attorney due to deportation risk uncertainty.
- The trial judge explained that non-citizens could face deportation as a result of the plea, and Castaño indicated understanding.
- Castaño argued, based on Padilla v. Kentucky, that counsel was ineffective for failing to apprise her of mandatory deportation consequences.
- The court aligned with Flores v. State to hold that a proper deportation warning at plea colloquy cures any prejudice from misadvice, though this conflicts with Hernandez; Padilla retroactivity was addressed by certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance re immigration guidance | Castaño contends counsel failed to inform her of deportation risk. | Castano's counsel discussed immigration consequences and advised seeking immigration counsel; warning at plea suffices. | Warning cures prejudice; no ineffective assistance found on this point. |
| Retroactivity of Padilla and conflict certification | Padilla should be applied retroactively to her plea. | Padilla should not be applied retroactively at this time; conflict acknowledged. | Retroactivity left undecided; conflict certified for supreme court review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores v. State, 57 So.3d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (deportation warning at plea can cure misadvice about immigration consequences)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (U.S. Supreme Court 2010) (establishes counsel's duty to warn about immigration consequences)
- Hernandez v. State, 61 So.3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (conflicts with Flores on retroactivity/cure of misadvice)
- Shaikh, 65 So.3d 539 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (Padilla retroactivity issue; public-importance certification approach)
- Chin v. State, 51 So.3d 472 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (treats related rule consistent with 3.850 affirmance approach)