newly discovered evidence claim in Florida

2025We have explained that “the circuit court is authorized to summarily deny a newly-discovered-evidence claim if the motion, files, and record refute the allegations pertaining to either (or both) prongs of the Jones [v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998)] test.” Rogers v. State, 327 So. 3d 784 , 787 (Fla. 2021).

2021As to Martin’s “newly discovered evidence” claim, the court applied the newly discovered evidence test articulated in Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521 (Fla. 1998), and found that although Smith’s juvenile adjudication and grandfather’s murder could not have been discovered at the time of trial by the use of diligence, the evidence of Smith’s juror misconduct was not of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.

2023See also McLin v. State, 827 So. 2d 948, 955 (Fla. 2002) (requiring an evidentiary hearing to test the credibility of the codefendant's recantation that served as the basis for a newly discovered evidence claim). 8

2018Furthermore, "[t]he summary denial of a newly discovered evidence claim will be upheld if the motion is legally insufficient or its allegations are conclusively refuted by the record." Taylor v. State , 3 So.3d 986 , 999 (Fla. 2009) (citing McLin v. State , 827 So.2d 948 , 954 (Fla. 2002) ).

2016With respect , to a trial court’s ruling on a newly discovered evidence claim following an evidentiary hearing, as long as the court’s, findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence,, a reviewing court will not “substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court,” Blanco v. State, 702 So.2d 1250, 1252 (Fla.1997) (quoting Demps v. State, 462 So.2d 1074, 1075 (Fla.1984)), b.ut the court’s application of law to facts is subject to de novo review.

2011With respect to a trial court’s ruling on a newly discovered evidence claim following an evidentiary hearing, as long as the court’s findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence, a reviewing court will not “substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court,” Blanco v. State, 702 So.2d 1250, 1252 (Fla.1997) (quoting Demps v. State, 462 So.2d 1074, 1075 (Fla.1984)), but the court’s application of law to facts is subject to de novo review.

2025See Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911, 916 (Fla. 1991) (explaining that, at the evidentiary hearing on a newly discovered evidence claim, “the trial judge should consider all newly discovered evidence which would be admissible and determine whether such evidence, had it been introduced at the trial, would have probably resulted in an acquittal”); Suggs v. State, 238 So. 3d 699, 703 (Fla. 2017) (holding that because the purported newly discovered evidence “would be inadmissible as irrelevant and substantially more unfairly prejudicial than probative” at any new trial, it would not produce an acqui

2024Nevertheless, because we are also reversing the order in 3D23-134 and remanding for an evidentiary hearing on the newly discovered evidence claim the new trial, the trial court will be required to “consider all newly discovered evidence which would be admissible,” and “evaluate the weight of both the newly discovered evidence and the evidence which was introduced at the trial.” Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911, 915 (Fla. 1991).

2019When the lower court has ruled on a newly discovered evidence claim following an evidentiary hearing, we review its “findings on questions of fact, the credibility of witnesses, and the weight of the evidence for competent, substantial evidence.” Green v. State, 975 So. 2d 1090, 1100 (Fla. 2008).

2019Further, when, as in Calhoun’s case, the circuit court rules on a newly discovered evidence claim after an evidentiary hearing, this Court “review[s] the trial court’s findings on questions of fact, the credibility of witnesses, and the weight of the evidence for competent, substantial evidence.” Green v. State, 975 So. 2d 1090, 1100 (Fla. 2008).

2015However, in reviewing the trial court’s application of these standards, “When the trial court rules on a newly discovered evidence claim after an eviden-tiary hearing, we review the trial court’s findings on questions of fact, the credibility of witnesses, and the weight of the evidence for competent, substantial evidence.” Riechmann v. State, 966 So.2d 298, 316 (Fla.2007) (citing Melendez v. State, 718 So.2d 746, 747-48 (Fla.1998)). “‘Moreover, recanting testimony is exceedingly unreliable, and it is the duty of the court to deny a new trial where it is not satisfied that such testimony is tr

2006Furthermore, the trial court, citing to Melendez v. State, 718 So.2d 746 (Fla.1998), [9] questioned the overall *1012 credibility of these witnesses and noted that their versions of events were not even consistent with one another. [10] Regarding Melton's claim that this evidence could be used to exculpate him in the Saylor murder and could therefore rebut one of the aggravators used in sentencing him to death in the instant crime, we also note, again, that Melton raised this same newly discovered evidence claim, based on the same inmate testimony, as a part of his rule 3.850 motion challengin

2024See, e.g., Hitchcock v. State, 991 So. 2d 337, 350 (Fla. 2008) (noting that witness credibility is “critical to the newly discovered evidence analysis”).

2017Moreover, this Court has explained that “[w]hen the trial court rules on a newly discovered evidence claim after an evidentiary hearing, we accept the trial court’s findings on questions of fact, the credibility of witnesses, and the weight of the evidence if based upon competent, substantial evidence.” Waterhouse v. State, 82 So. 3d 84, 101 (Fla. 2012) (quoting Hitchcock v. State, 991 So. 2d 337, 349 (Fla. 2008)).

2021Weekly S124 , S125 (Fla. May 13, 2021) (citing Tompkins v. State, 994 So. 2d 1072, 1081 (Fla. 2008)). -5- Consistent with the foregoing principles, the circuit court is authorized to summarily deny a newly-discovered-evidence claim if the motion, files, and record refute the allegations pertaining to either (or both) prongs of the Jones test.

2021See Tompkins v. State, 994 So. 2d 1072, 1086 (Fla. 2008) (In order to prevail on a newly discovered evidence claim, “the evidence must not have been known by the trial court, the party, or counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that the defendant or defense counsel could not have known of it by the use of diligence.”); Demps v. State, 515 So. 2d 196, 198 (Fla. 1987) (“[I]ssues [which] could have and should 1 As the motion below was filed more than two years after the judgment and sentence became final, Ramirez was required to show “the facts on which the claim is predicated were unkn

2024Following the December 3 hearing, Palmer filed a second motion for postconviction relief based on the fingerprint evidence, which Palmer argued was a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and additionally raised a newly discovered evidence claim based on an affidavit executed by the victim, British Mitchell.

2018Swafford , 125 So.3d at 775-76 ; Lightbourne , 742 So.2d at 247 ; see also Roberts v. State , 840 So.2d 962 , 972 (Fla. 2002) (holding that upon remand, if the trial court determined that the testimony in a newly discovered evidence claim was reliable, the trial court was required to review that new evidence, as well as claims under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), that were previously rejected in a prior postconviction motion, because the evidence was equally accessible to the defense and there was no reasonable probability that the result of the trial

2025Thus, we affirm. 3 See Long v. State, 183 So. 3d 342, 345 (Fla. 2016) (“If a defendant seeks to make a newly discovered evidence claim, he must timely file a postconviction motion based on newly discovered evidence to vacate his judgment and sentence and meet a two- prong test . . .

2023See Long v. State, 183 So. 3d 342, 345 (Fla. 2016) (“If a defendant seeks to make a newly discovered evidence claim, he must timely file a postconviction motion based on newly discovered evidence to vacate his judgment and sentence and meet a two-prong test . . . ‘First, the evidence must not have been known by the trial court, the party, or counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that the defendant or defense counsel could not have known of it by the use of diligence.

2018Swafford, 125 So. 3d at 775-76 ; Lightbourne, 742 So. 2d at 247 ; see also Roberts v. State, 840 So. 2d 962, 972 (Fla. 2002) (holding that upon remand, if the trial court determined that the testimony in a newly discovered evidence claim was reliable, the trial court was required to review that new evidence, as well as claims under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), that were previously rejected in a prior postconviction motion, because the evidence was equally accessible to the defense and there was no reasonable probability that the result of the trial w

2018Swafford , 125 So.3d at 775-76 ; Lightbourne , 742 So.2d at 247 ; see also Roberts v. State , 840 So.2d 962 , 972 (Fla. 2002) (holding that upon remand, if the trial court determined that the testimony in a newly discovered evidence claim was reliable, the trial court was required to review that new evidence, as well as claims under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), that were previously rejected in a prior postconviction motion, because the evidence was equally accessible to the defense and there was no reasonable probability that the result of the trial

2020See Kearse v. State, 969 So. 2d 976, 987 (Fla. 2007) (affirming the denial of a newly discovered evidence claim where Kearse alleged that an expert’s conduct in a subsequent, unrelated case demonstrated that expert’s testimony in the Kearse’s case was biased); Porter v. State, 653 So. 2d 374, 379-80 (Fla. 1995) (holding that Porter’s good conduct in prison was not newly discovered evidence), receded from on other grounds by Wyatt v. State, 71 So. 3d 86, 99-100 , 100 n.13 (Fla. 2011).

2016See Wyatt v. State, 71 So.3d 86, 99 (Fla.2011) (“Thus, we hold that a newly discovered evidence claim predicated upon a case-specific letter from the FBI discrediting the CBLA testimony offered at trial is not procedurally barred if- timely raised.”).

2018See Jones II, 709 So. 2d at 521 (“First, in order to be considered newly discovered, the evidence ‘must have been unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that defendant or his counsel could not have known [of it] by the use of diligence.’ ” (quoting Torres–Arboleda v. Dugger, 636 So. 2d 1321, 1324-25 (Fla. 1994))). -6- The second prong of the newly discovered evidence test requires that “the newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.” Id. (citing Jones I, 591 So. 2d at 911, 91

2018The second prong of the newly discovered evidence test requires that "the newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial." Id. (citing Jones I , 591 So.2d at 911 , 915 ).

2018Swafford, 125 So. 3d at 775-76 ; Lightbourne, 742 So. 2d at 247 ; see also Roberts v. State, 840 So. 2d 962, 972 (Fla. 2002) (holding that upon remand, if the trial court determined that the testimony in a newly discovered evidence claim was reliable, the trial court was required to review that new evidence, as well as claims under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), that were previously rejected in a prior postconviction motion, because the evidence was equally accessible to the defense and there was no reasonable probability that the result of the trial w

2018Swafford , 125 So.3d at 775-76 ; Lightbourne , 742 So.2d at 247 ; see also Roberts v. State , 840 So.2d 962 , 972 (Fla. 2002) (holding that upon remand, if the trial court determined that the testimony in a newly discovered evidence claim was reliable, the trial court was required to review that new evidence, as well as claims under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), that were previously rejected in a prior postconviction motion, because the evidence was equally accessible to the defense and there was no reasonable probability that the result of the trial

2025Dr. Arden’s re-examination of the slides thirty years later “corroborated that [the victim] had pneumonia.” This case—with Dr. Arden’s additional conclusions as to the timing of the pneumonia—is far more akin to the defense “merely obtaining a new expert,” something we have said “cannot be the basis for a newly discovered evidence claim.” Howell v. State, 145 So. 3d 774, 775 (Fla. 2013).

2024When a newly discovered evidence claim is brought as a successive claim, the defendant must demonstrate an exception to the rule’s time limitations. 3 See Howell v. State, 145 So. 3d 774, 775 (Fla. 2013); Fla. R.

2016With respect , to a trial court’s ruling on a newly discovered evidence claim following an evidentiary hearing, as long as the court’s, findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence,, a reviewing court will not “substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court,” Blanco v. State, 702 So.2d 1250, 1252 (Fla.1997) (quoting Demps v. State, 462 So.2d 1074, 1075 (Fla.1984)), b.ut the court’s application of law to facts is subject to de novo review.

2011With respect to a trial court’s ruling on a newly discovered evidence claim following an evidentiary hearing, as long as the court’s findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence, a reviewing court will not “substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court,” Blanco v. State, 702 So.2d 1250, 1252 (Fla.1997) (quoting Demps v. State, 462 So.2d 1074, 1075 (Fla.1984)), but the court’s application of law to facts is subject to de novo review.

2016Preston v. State, 970 So.2d 789, 798 (Fla.2007).

2011Preston v. State, 970 So.2d 789, 798 (Fla.2007).

2014In contrast to ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the prejudice prong of a newly discovered evidence claim has a higher, outcome-determinative threshold because such a claim “presupposes that all the essential elements of a presumptively accurate and fair proceeding were present in the proceeding whose result is challenged.” Robinson v. State, 770 So. 2d 1167, 1171 (Fla. 2000) (Anstead, J., specially concurring) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693-94 ).

2013In contrast to ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the prejudice prong of a newly discovered evidence claim has a higher, outcome-determinative threshold because such a claim “presupposes that all the essential elements of a presumptively accurate and fair proceeding were present in the proceeding whose result is challenged.” Robinson v. State, 770 So.2d 1167, 1171 (Fla.2000) (Anstead, J., specially concurring) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693-94 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ).

2002See Foster, 810 So.2d at 914 ; Anderson, 627 So.2d at 1171 . *955 In Robinson , a similar case involving a newly discovered evidence claim where an affidavit was attached from a State's witness recanting his former testimony, the Fourth District reversed a trial court's summary denial and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

2002Because the Third District affirmed the trial court's summary denial on this record, the Third District misapplied this Court's precedent as to the standard of review of a summary denial of a newly discovered evidence claim, which requires that "[t]o uphold the trial court's summary denial of claims raised in a rule 3.850 motion, the claims must be either facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record." Foster, 810 So.2d at 914 .

2006"The two elements of a newly discovered evidence claim apply equally to the issue of `whether a life or death sentence should have been imposed.'" Ventura v. State, 794 So.2d 553, 571 (Fla.2001) (quoting Scott v. Dugger, 604 So.2d 465, 468 (Fla. 1992)).

2001The two elements of a newly discovered evidence claim apply equally to the issue of "whether a life or death sentence should have been imposed." Scott v. Dugger, 604 So.2d 465, 468 (Fla. 1992).

2018Swafford, 125 So. 3d at 775-76 ; Lightbourne, 742 So. 2d at 247 ; see also Roberts v. State, 840 So. 2d 962, 972 (Fla. 2002) (holding that upon remand, if the trial court determined that the testimony in a newly discovered evidence claim was reliable, the trial court was required to review that new evidence, as well as claims under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), that were previously rejected in a prior postconviction motion, because the evidence was equally accessible to the defense and there was no reasonable probability that the result of the trial w

2018Swafford , 125 So.3d at 775-76 ; Lightbourne , 742 So.2d at 247 ; see also Roberts v. State , 840 So.2d 962 , 972 (Fla. 2002) (holding that upon remand, if the trial court determined that the testimony in a newly discovered evidence claim was reliable, the trial court was required to review that new evidence, as well as claims under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), that were previously rejected in a prior postconviction motion, because the evidence was equally accessible to the defense and there was no reasonable probability that the result of the trial

2020See Kearse v. State, 969 So. 2d 976, 987 (Fla. 2007) (affirming the denial of a newly discovered evidence claim where Kearse alleged that an expert’s conduct in a subsequent, unrelated case demonstrated that expert’s testimony in the Kearse’s case was biased); Porter v. State, 653 So. 2d 374, 379-80 (Fla. 1995) (holding that Porter’s good conduct in prison was not newly discovered evidence), receded from on other grounds by Wyatt v. State, 71 So. 3d 86, 99-100 , 100 n.13 (Fla. 2011).

2011As addressed in that opinion, the postcon-viction court reached this conclusion based on language in Kearse v. State, 969 So.2d 976, 987 (Fla.2007), which involved different circumstances and stated that the "evidence must have existed ... at the time of trial.” We have since clarified that the language "must have existed ... at the time of trial,” which was promulgated by this Court in Kearse and applied by the postconviction court in this case, has never been a part of the newly discovered evidence analysis and was an incorrect recitation of the test set forth in the Jones decision.

2018Furthermore, “[t]he summary denial of a newly discovered evidence claim will be upheld if the motion is legally insufficient or its allegations are conclusively refuted by the record.” Taylor v. State, 3 So. 3d 986, 999 (Fla. 2009) (citing McLin v. State, 827 So. 2d 948, 954 (Fla. 2002)).

2018Furthermore, "[t]he summary denial of a newly discovered evidence claim will be upheld if the motion is legally insufficient or its allegations are conclusively refuted by the record." Taylor v. State , 3 So.3d 986 , 999 (Fla. 2009) (citing McLin v. State , 827 So.2d 948 , 954 (Fla. 2002) ).

2008This Court also concluded in Tompkins VI in affirming the summary denial: Tompkins' case is more akin to Sims v. State, 754 So.2d 657, 662-63 (Fla. 2000), in which the Court affirmed the denial of a newly discovered evidence claim based on hearsay statements that a person other than the defendant committed the crime.

2007Tompkins' case is more akin to Sims v. State, 754 So.2d 657, 662-63 (Fla.2000), in which the Court affirmed the denial of a newly discovered evidence claim based on hearsay statements that a person other than the defendant committed the crime.

2026See, e.g., Patterson v. State, 240 So. 3d 123, 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (holding that defendant was entitled to amend rule 3.850 motion containing an improper oath, among other deficiencies, in the context of a newly discovered evidence claim).

2026See, e.g., Patterson v. State, 240 So. 3d 123, 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (holding that defendant was entitled to amend rule 3.850 motion where there was an improper oath, among other deficiencies, in the context of a newly discovered evidence claim).

2026Because our analysis relies in substantial part on our prior opinion in Clark v. State, 236 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), we grant the State’s motion to certify conflict, and certify conflict with the Fifth District’s recent opinion in Gadson v. State, No. 5D2025-1267, 2025 WL 2989578 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 24, 2025).

2025In another case, Clark v. State, 236 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), we reversed the summary denial of a newly discovered evidence claim based on an unconveyed plea offer, finding trial counsel’s knowledge of a plea offer could not be imputed to the movant for purposes of the newly discovered fact exception to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(1).

2025Davis v. State, 26 So. 3d 519, 528-29 (Fla. 2009) (emphasis and internal citations omitted). 1.

2012The determination of whether the statements in an affidavit provided as newly discovered evidence are true and meet the due diligence and probability prongs of Jones v. State, 709 So.2d 512, 521 (Fla.1998) (Jones II), “usually requires an evidentiary hearing to evaluate credibility unless the affidavit is inherently incredible or obviously immaterial to the verdict and sentence.” Davis, 26 So.3d at 526 ; see also McLin v. State, 827 So.2d 948, 955 (Fla.2002) (requiring an evidentiary hearing to test the credibility of the codefendant’s recantation that served as the basis for a newly discovere

2018"To support a summary denial without a hearing, a trial court must either state its rationale in its decision or attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim presented in the motion." Anderson v. State , 627 So.2d 1170 , 1171 (Fla. 1993).

2002See Foster, 810 So.2d at 914 ; Anderson, 627 So.2d at 1171 . *955 In Robinson , a similar case involving a newly discovered evidence claim where an affidavit was attached from a State's witness recanting his former testimony, the Fourth District reversed a trial court's summary denial and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.