
    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.
   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.  