- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 97,958
- Reaction score
- 417,050
Have the written arguments been released,
No updates since my last post (#77) above.
Have the written arguments been released,
![]()
Judge grants more time for closing arguments in Mark Sievers appeal
A circuit court judge granted both sides 30 more days to file their closing arguments in Mark Sievers' conviction and death sentence appeal.www.usatoday.comJudge grants more time for closing arguments in Mark Sievers appeal
Mark Sievers' counsel cited time constraints with a separate impending execution.
Dec. 2, 2025, 3:07 p.m. ET
A judge is allowing both sides more time to file their closing arguments in the appeal of a Bonita Springs man on death row for orchestrating his wife's murder.
[...]
Thanks for keeping us updated, glad to see he was denied, will be interesting to read when it gets uploadedDocket Events:
Date Description Dkt# Pages
02/24/2026 Order Denying Motion for Post-Conviction Relief Filed 981 702
link: https://matrix.leeclerk.org/Case/ViewCase
The court site has not downloaded the document for the Order denying motion yet.
It's available now, MS has had his appeal denied on all grounds. But I only skimmed it as it's 700 pages long.Docket Events:
Date Description Dkt# Pages
02/24/2026 Order Denying Motion for Post-Conviction Relief Filed 981 702
link: https://matrix.leeclerk.org/Case/ViewCase
The court site has not downloaded the document for the Order denying motion yet.
| 03/06/2026 | Motion for Rehearing Filed | 982 | 5 |
State of Florida vs Sievers, Mark D
03/06/2026 Motion for Rehearing Filed 982 5
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
COMES NOW, the defendant, Mark Sievers, by and through undersigned counsel,
respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.Pro. 3.851(f)(7), for a rehearing. By this
motion, Mr. Sievers submits that the court has overlooked and/or misapprehended points of law
and facts critical to the resolution of the claims presented in his motion. In support thereof, Mr.
Sievers, through counsel, respectfully submits as follows:
[...]
Had Mr. Sievers’ jury heard from Mr. Rodgers, they would have been presented withreasonable alternative events that contradicted Mr. Wright and the State’s narrative. This wouldhave led to a different verdict and the lack of investigation prejudiced Mr. Sievers.
[...]