Marhlau Beliziare v. The State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: July 10, 2024
• Docket: 2023-1717
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 10, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1717 Lower Tribunal No. F07-17556 ________________

Marhlau Beliziare, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Milton Hirsch, Judge.

Daniel J. Tibbitt, P.A., and Daniel Tibbitt, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Long v. State, 183 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 2016) (adopting two-

pronged test, analogous to that of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,

104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), to determine whether a plea should

be vacated based on a claim of newly-discovered evidence); Grosvenor v.

State, 874 So. 2d 1176, 1181-82 (Fla. 2004) (“[I]n determining whether a

reasonable probability exist that the defendant would have insisted on going

to trial, a court should consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding

the plea, including factors such as whether a particular defense was likely to

succeed at trial, the colloquy between the defendant and the trial court at the

time of the plea, and the difference between the sentence imposed under

the plea and the maximum possible sentence the defendant faced at trial.”)