The issue of Padilla retroactivity has been making its way through the State appellate courts. I have already written about the ruling from the Minnesota Court of Appeals which held in Campos v. State that Padilla could be applied retroactively. Campos, however, was not the first state appellate case to hold as such. Just four days before Campos was decided, the Texas Court of Appeals, in State v. Golding, ruled in similar fashion: “Considering the language of the Padilla opinion, the Strickland analysis, and the prevailing professional norms occasioned by major changes in immigration law, we hold that Padilla — as an extension of Strickland, and not a new constitutional rule — applies to this case.” State v. Golding, slip op. at 24-25. The opinion in Golding can be downloaded here.
I should also point out that the Florida Court of Appeals has chimed in on Padilla retroactivity, albeit unfavorably to potential Padilla postconviction petitioners (say that three times in a row!). The case is Gabriel Hernandez v. State of Florida, Case No. 3D10-2462 (3d Dist. Apr. 6, 2011). The saving grace here, as ALIA has helpfully pointed out, is that the Hernandez decision had little analysis on Padilla retroactivity and ultimately certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court. This will definitely be a case to watch.