Hernandez v. State
61 So. 3d 1144
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Hernandez, a noncitizen permanent resident, pleaded guilty in April 2001 to sale of a controlled substance; plea term included probation and costs, with the maximum potential sentence described.
- During the plea colloquy, Hernandez affirmed understanding that noncitizen status could subject him to deportation; he spoke English and did not obtain immigration counsel.
- Hernandez later learned his conviction was an aggravated felony under federal law, mandating deportation with no discretionary relief available.
- In July 2010, approximately three months after Padilla v. Kentucky, he moved to vacate his plea under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 arguing ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla.
- The circuit court denied the motion; Hernandez appealed, raising whether Florida’s Rule 3.172(c)(8) deportation warning bars Padilla-based IAC claims and whether Padilla applies retroactively; the court also noted a district-conflict with Flores v. State and certified questions of great public importance.
- The court held that Padilla renders Florida’s warning deficient but declines retroactive application of Padilla in Florida postconviction proceedings; it affirmed the circuit court and certified questions and a conflict with Flores.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 3.172(c)(8) bar Padilla-based IAC claims? | Hernandez argues Padilla requires invalidating the plea because the warning was not a true 'will subject you' deportation notice. | State argues prior Florida warning suffices and Flores controls, so Padilla does not render the plea defective. | Padilla renders the warning deficient; 3.172(c)(8) does not bar Padilla claims. |
| Should Padilla be applied retroactively in Florida postconviction proceedings? | Padilla should be retroactive to vacate pre-Padilla pleas. | Retroactivity would disrupt final judgments and flood postconviction practice with claims. | Padilla does not apply retroactively under Witt v. State. |
| Should the Florida Supreme Court be asked to resolve conflicts with Flores regarding Padilla’s retroactivity and warning standards? | Flores conflicts with Padilla on the warning issue and retroactivity. | Flores remains controlling unless overridden by Padilla's reasoning; no retroactivity. | Conflict certified with Flores; questions of great public importance certified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) ( Sixth Amendment requires unequivocal immigration consequences advice when deportation is truly clear)
- Flores v. State, 57 So.3d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (distinguished Padilla based on 'may subject you' warning; pre-Padilla approach)
- Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla.1980) (retroactivity framework for Florida postconviction rules)
- Chandler v. Crosby, 916 So.2d 728 (Fla.2005) (factors for procedural, non-substantive new rules in Witt context)
- State v. Fleming, 61 So.3d 399 (Fla.2011) ( settles Florida district court retroactivity doctrine for several decisions)
- Boakye v. United States, 2010 WL 1645055 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (Padilla-like analysis in federal court for plea with immigration consequences)