Martinez v. State

66 So. 3d 1083, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12687, 2011 WL 3516148

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND WRITTEN OPINION

PER CURIAM.

We deny Appellant’s motion for rehearing, but withdraw our previous per curiam opinion dated June 14, 2011, and substitute the following opinion in its place.

AFFIRMED. See Santiago v. State, 65 So.3d 575 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); see also Hernandez v. State, 61 So.3d 1144, 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding, inter alia, that the decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), should not be applied retroactively, while certifying the question as one of great public importance); accord Barrios-Cruz v. State, 63 So.3d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). We join the Second and Third District in certifying the following question as a question of great public importance:

SHOULD THE RULING IN Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY IN POSTCONVICTION PROCEEDINGS?

SAWAYA, TORPY, COHEN, JJ., concur.