Hernandez v. State
124 So. 3d 757
Fla.2012Background
- Hernandez pled guilty in 2001 to a controlled substance offense; plea colloquy included a vague immigration warning.
- Hernandez, a Nicaragua-born permanent resident, faced potential deportation as a consequence of his plea under federal law.
- Defense counsel provided minimal immigration-specific advice and did not refer Hernandez to an immigration specialist.
- Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) held counsel must advise noncitizens about deportation risk; clarified the duty when consequences are clear.
- Third District denied postconviction relief, relying on Flores v. State (2010) to treat the Rule 3.172(c)(8) warning as insufficient to create prejudice.
- This Court held Padilla does not apply retroactively, and Rule 3.172(c)(8) does not universally cure prejudice from deficient counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Padilla retroactive as a matter of law? | Hernandez argues Padilla applies. | State contends Padilla not retroactive. | Padilla not retroactive. |
| Does Rule 3.172(c)(8) cure prejudice from counsel’s immigration advice? | Hernandez contends equivocal warning is insufficient. | State argues warning cures prejudice. | Equivocal warning does not always cure prejudice. |
| Does Padilla apply to this case under Strickland prejudice standard? | Hernandez would have rejected plea if correctly advised. | State argues no prejudice shown due to warning. | Padilla deficient but not retroactively applied; prejudice not categorically cured. |
| Should Florida retroactivity Witt factors be applied to Padilla? | Padilla is fundamental; retroactive. | Witt factors weigh against retroactivity. | Padilla not retroactive under Witt factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (defense counsel must advise on deportation risk when clear)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice in plea context requires reasonable probability of a better outcome)
- Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla. 1980) (retroactivity as a Witt framework factor)
- Chandler v. Crosby, 916 So.2d 728 (Fla.2005) (fundamental significance test for retroactivity)
- Flores v. State, 57 So.3d 218 (Fla.4th DCA 2010) (warning under Rule 3.172(c)(8) not always cure for prejudice)
- State v. Green, 944 So.2d 208 (Fla.2006) (plea warning and postconviction relief)
- Ginebra, 511 So.2d 960 (Fla.1987) (counsel not required to advise on collateral deportation consequences)
- Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400 (Fla.2005) (Witt-based retroactivity considerations)
- Chaidez v. United States, 655 F.3d 684 (2011) (circuit split on retroactivity of Padilla)