Appellate Law, Criminal Defense, Criminal Appeals & Criminal Appellate Review and Post Conviction Relief in Florida Courts, Federal District Courts and the 11th Circuit for Criminal Attorneys, Criminal Lawyers & Appellate Lawyers
Criminal defense and criminal appeals lawyers may be interested to know that on October 30, 2012, the United States Supreme Court will be having OA in the case of Chaidez v. United States, No.11-00820, to consider the question of whether Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), will apply retroactively to defendants whose convictions became final before the Padilla decision was rendered. The formal Question Presented, as framed by the Court, reads as follows:
11-820 CHAIDEZ V. UNITED STATES
DECISION BELOW: 655 F.3d 684
CERT. GRANTED 4/30/2012
QUESTION PRESENTED: In Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), this Court held that criminal
defendants receive ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment
when their attorneys fail to advise them that pleading guilty to an offense will
subject them to deportation. The question presented is whether Padilla applies to
persons whose convictions became final before its announcement.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-3623
The Florida Supreme Court is considering the retroactivity issue as well, in the case of State v. Hernandez, No. SC11-1357. According to the docket, the Florida Supreme Court held OA in May of 2012. Since the Florida Supreme Court has yet to issue a decision, perhaps it’s waiting to see what the United States Supreme Court decides in Chaidez. My last post on the Hernandez case can be found here.
Mandatory e-filing in Florida’s courts is being delayed. Surprising, I know. Check out the order here. Too bad the State of Florida can’t just buy the CM/ECF system that the Federal courts use. Then again, that would just be too easy.
As I reviewed the websites for Florida’s District Courts of Appeal this week, I noticed that a good number of opinions are being issued in the wake of State v. Adkins, 37 Fla. L. Weekly S449 (Fla. July 12, 2012). For example, the Fourth DCA issued a slew of opinions denying Rule 3.850 motions for post-conviction relief, while the First and Second DCA reversed several cases which had been dismissed based on Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2011). Note: in Shelton v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections, No. 11-13515, 2012 WL 3641008 (11th Cir. Aug. 24, 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of federal habeas relief. You can read my previous post on the Eleventh Circuit opinion here.
For those criminal defense and criminal appeals attorneys who are monitoring the Padilla retroactivity issue, in Litchmore v. State, No. 2D12-800, the Second DCA certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court as to the retroactivity of Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S. —, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010), in post-conviction proceedings. The issue remains pending in the Florida Supreme Court. You can search the docket for State v. Hernandez, No. SC11-1357, by clicking here.
Still no word from the Florida Supreme Court on two criminal appeals I’ve been watching: State v. Adkins, SC11-1878 (constitutionality of section 893.13), and State v. Hernandez, SC11-1357 (retroactivity of Padilla). According to the dockets, oral argument was held in Adkins in December, 2011. Oral argument was held in Hernandez in May, 2012. A couple of my previous posts on these appeals can be found here, here, and here.
Meanwhile, attorneys who are following the battle between the Florida Supreme Court and Governor Scott might be interested to learn that FDLE recently cleared Justices Pariente, Lewis, and Quince of wrongdoing with regard to their use of notaries to complete the filing of their financial disclosures. (Big surprise!) You can read a report from the Palm Beach Post here. My previous post on this topic can be found here.
It’s been quite a while, but still no word from the Court on two important criminal appeals cases. If you recall, Hernandez concerns the issue of advising criminal defendants of the immigration consequences of their pleas, in light of the United States Supreme Court decision, Padilla v. Kentucky. Adkins involves the constitutionality of Florida’s drug possession statute, section 893.13. The longer the wait, the more cases pile up in the courts, both at the trial and appellate levels. The docket for State v. Hernandez, SC11-1357, and State v. Adkins, SC11-1878, can both be viewed at the Florida Supreme Court website.