IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
JULY TERM2011
ABRAHAM DE PINILLO MARTINEZ,
Appellant,
v.
Case No. 5D11-969
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed August 12, 2011
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Brevard County,
Robert T. Burger, Judge.
Ricardo Corona and Juan C. Freire
of The Corona Law Firm,
Miami, for Appellant
No Appearance for Respondent
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, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1426 (Fla. 5th DCA July
1, 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.
2
