Abraham Martinez v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.