Perez v. State
2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11598
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Perez pleaded guilty to manufacturing cannabis and felony possession; adjudication withheld and probation imposed, no direct appeal.
- In 2011 Perez timely filed a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion, alleging ineffective assistance for failing to warn about deportation consequences, citing Padilla.
- The trial court denied, relying on plea colloquy acknowledging possible deportation effects.
- Hernandez and Castano later held that Padilla is not retroactive, distinguishing cases where Padilla could apply.
- The Florida Supreme Court in Hernandez held Padilla non-retroactive; Castano recognized a pipeline scenario where Padilla could apply if pending postconviction claims existed when Padilla issued.
- Perez's conviction was final before Padilla, and his motion was filed after Padilla was decided, leading to retroactivity analysis under Witt/Linkletter; court affirmed denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Padilla retroactive for final convictions? | Perez argues Padilla should apply due to pipeline logic and timing. | State argues Padilla is not retroactive under Witt/Linkletter and Chaidez limits. | Padilla not retroactive under current Rule 3.850 analysis. |
| Does the pipeline rule permit retroactivePadilla relief here? | Perez relies on Castano/Pariente to allow retroactivity due to pending claims when Padilla issued. | State contends pipeline rationale does not override retroactivity standards. | Pipeline does not warrant retroactive application in this case. |
| Did finality of Perez's conviction foreclose Padilla relief? | Finality timing should not bar relief if Padilla applies under pipeline reasoning. | Finality and timing support denial consistent with Chaidez and Witt factors. | Finality supports denial of Padilla relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (new rule; retroactivity analysis governs applying Padilla)
- Hernandez v. State, 61 So.3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (Padilla not retroactive; caution on warnings in plea)
- Castano v. State, 119 So.3d 1208 (Fla. 2012) (pipeline exception allowing Padilla relief where pending postconviction claim)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (U.S. 2013) (Padilla does not apply retroactively in federal habeas context)
- Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla. 1980) (three-factor Witt retroactivity framework)
- Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837 (Fla. 2005) (Apprendi retroactivity analyzed under Witt factors)