From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct 9, 2013
122 So. 3d 429 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

Opinion

No. 3D11–3250.

2013-10-9

Michael PEREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami–Dade County, Antonio Arzola, Judge, Judge. Michael Perez, in proper person. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Joanne Diez, Assistant Attorney General, for petitioner.


An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami–Dade County, Antonio Arzola, Judge, Judge.
Michael Perez, in proper person. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Joanne Diez, Assistant Attorney General, for petitioner.
Before SHEPHERD, C.J., and WELLS and LAGOA, JJ.

Prior report: 118 So.3d 298.

ON MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION


PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of Petitioner's Motion, we certify the following question to our supreme court as one of great public importance:

HOW SHOULD MANIFEST INJUSTICE BE DEFINED FOR PURPOSES OF A CLAIM OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE AFTER A GUILTY PLEA?

Certification granted.

SHEPHERD, C.J., and WELLS and LAGOA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Perez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct 9, 2013
122 So. 3d 429 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)
Case details for

Perez v. State

Case Details

Full title:Michael PEREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Date published: Oct 9, 2013

Citations

122 So. 3d 429 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

Citing Cases

State v. Perez

HOW SHOULD MANIFEST INJUSTICE BE DEFINED FOR PURPOSES OF A CLAIM OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE AFTER A GUILTY…