Marino v. State

132 So. 3d 880, 2014 WL 464066, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1415
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 5, 2014·No. No. 2D13-1614·Published

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

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

132 So. 3d 880 (Marino v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marek v. State
14 So. 3d 985 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2009)
Stallworth v. State
21 So. 3d 84 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)