Case ID: so3d_65/html/1079-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WELLS, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Leduan DIAZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D10-2563.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    May 25, 2011.
    Matthew E. Ladd; Pozo, Goldstein & Gomez, and Maggie Arias; Robbins, Tun-key, Ross, Amsel, Raben and Waxman, and Benjamin Waxman, for appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Timothy R.M. Thomas, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
    Florida Immigration Advocacy Center, and Tania Galloni; Immigration Clinic, University of Miami School of Law, and Rebecca Sharpless, Immigration Clinic, St. Thomas University School of Law, and Michael Vastine, for American Immigration Lawyers Association, South Florida Chapter, as Amicus Curiae; Sabrina Vora-Puglisi, and Sonya Rudenstein (Gaines-ville), and Michael Ufferman (Tallahassee), for The Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Miami Chapter of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, as amicus curiae.
    Before WELLS, CORTIÑAS, and LAGOA, JJ.
   ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

WELLS, Judge.

Defendant, Leduan Diaz, seeks rehearing following the issuance of our opinion on October 20, 2010. We grant rehearing, withdraw our prior opinion, and substitute this opinion in its place.

Diaz appeals the denial of his postcon-viction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.850, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to advise him that accepting a plea would subject him to deportation. We affirm based on Hernandez v. State, 61 So.3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), wherein this Court: (a) citing Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), found that the trial court’s deportation warning under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8) did not cure the prejudice arising from defense counsel’s failure to warn that accepting a plea would result in the defendant’s mandatory deportation; (b) certified conflict with Flores v. State, 57 So.3d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) on this legal question; and (c) found that Padilla had no retroactive effect and thus did not apply to pleas taken before Padilla was announced, certifying a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court.

Affirmed.