the plea colloquy that their pleas may subject them to deportation. See In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 536 So.2d 992, 992 (Fla.1988). This rule has been in effect since 1989, and it will continue to have significance, even in light of the Padilla decision. See, e.g., Flores v. State, 57 So.3d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (noting that even if counsel performed deficiently under Padilla, the defendant was unable to establish prejudice because during the plea colloquy, the trial court advised the defendant that his plea might result in his deportation and the defendant admitted that he understood). The longstanding, reasonable reliance upon this rule weighs heavily against the retroactive application of Padilla. See Williams v. State, 421 So.2d 512, 515 (Fla.1982) (<HOLDING>). Finally, as noted above, the Padilla decision
holding that the bia rule is reasonable holding that reasonable reliance upon the old rule is an important factor supporting prospective application of the new rule holding that new rule applied purely prospectively primarily because of reliance factor holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense holding that a decision to limit a new rule of criminal constitutional law to prospective application can be based on a balancing of the purpose of the new rule the reliance placed on the previous view of the law and the effect on the administration of justice of a retrospective application