Case Name: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Michael PEREZ, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2014-10-16
Citations: 149 So. 3d 680
Docket Number: No. SC13-1958
Parties: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Michael PEREZ, Respondent.
Judges: LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 149
Pages: 680–680

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Michael PEREZ, Respondent.
No. SC13-1958.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Oct. 16, 2014.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, and Richard L. Polin, Bureau Chief, Joanne Diez, Assistant Attorney General, and Linda S. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.
Gary L. Sasso of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Tampa, FL, and Steven Michael Blickensderfer of Carlton Fields Jor-den Burt, P.A., Miami, FL, and Peter D. Webster of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, for Respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Following the issuance of the Third District Court of Appeal's opinion in Perez v. State, 118 So.3d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), and upon the State's motion, the district court certified the following question 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?
Perez v. State, 122 So.3d 429, 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Initially, the Court accepted review under article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution. After further consideration, we conclude that jurisdiction was improvidently granted. Accordingly, this case is hereby dismissed.
It is so ordered.
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur.