Marino v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Marino v. State

132 So. 3d 880, 2014 WL 464066, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1415

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 5, 2014

DocketNo. 2D13-1614

StatusPublished

This text of 132 So. 3d 880 (Marino v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marino v. State, 132 So. 3d 880, 2014 WL 464066, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1415 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

VILLANTI, Judge.

The order denying Heidi Nicole Mari-no’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 is affirmed without prejudice to any right Marino may have to file a rule 3.850 motion seeking to vacate the sentence based on newly discov[881]*881ered evidence, the basis of such a claim being the affidavit of the victim averring that she suffered no injuries in the attack.¹ See Marek v. State, 14 So.3d 985, 990 (Fla.2009) (holding that in order to vacate a sentence based on newly discovered evidence, a defendant must demonstrate that said evidence would probably yield a less severe sentence). Any such motion shall be filed within sixty days from the issuance of the mandate in this proceeding and shall not be considered successive.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

VILLANTI, Judge.

The order denying Heidi Nicole Mari-no’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 is affirmed without prejudice to any right Marino may have to file a rule 3.850 motion seeking to vacate the sentence based on newly discov[881]*881ered evidence, the basis of such a claim being the affidavit of the victim averring that she suffered no injuries in the attack.¹ See Marek v. State, 14 So.3d 985, 990 (Fla.2009) (holding that in order to vacate a sentence based on newly discovered evidence, a defendant must demonstrate that said evidence would probably yield a less severe sentence). Any such motion shall be filed within sixty days from the issuance of the mandate in this proceeding and shall not be considered successive.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 So. 3d 880, 2014 WL 464066, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marino-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack