date upon claim in Florida

2023See Jimenez v. State, 997 So. 2d 1056, 1064 (Fla. 2008) (“To be considered timely filed as newly discovered evidence, the successive rule 3.851 motion was required to have been filed within one year of the date upon which the claim became discoverable through due diligence.”).

2023“To be considered timely filed as newly discovered evidence, [a] successive rule 3.851 motion [i]s required to have been filed within one year of the date upon which the claim became discoverable through due diligence.” James v. State, 323 So. 3d 158 , 160 (Fla. 2021) (quoting Jimenez v. State, 997 So. 2d 1056, 1064 (Fla. 2008)), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1678 (2022).

2026For Harvey to overcome the time bar, he must show that at the time of trial any “newly discovered evidence” was “unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel . . . and it could not have been discovered through due diligence, and . . . that the evidence is of such a nature that it would probably . . . yield a less severe sentence on retrial.” Dillbeck v. State, 357 So. 3d 94 , 100 (Fla. 2023) (third omission in original) (quoting Dailey v. State, 329 So. 3d 1280 , 1285 (Fla. 2021)); see also Jones, 709 So. 2d at 521 (establishing the two-part test to set aside a conviction based on n

2023This Court has explained that an intellectual disability claim that is based on newly discovered evidence must be filed “within one year of the date upon which the claim became discoverable through due diligence.” Pittman v. State, 337 So. 3d 776 , 777 (Fla. 2022); see also Bowles, 276 So. 3d at 794 (affirming summary denial of untimely intellectual disability claim). -7- Dillbeck’s claim depends on his ND-PAE diagnosis.

2026For Harvey to overcome the time bar, he must show that at the time of trial any “newly discovered evidence” was “unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel . . . and it could not have been discovered through due diligence, and . . . that the evidence is of such a nature that it would probably . . . yield a less severe sentence on retrial.” Dillbeck v. State, 357 So. 3d 94 , 100 (Fla. 2023) (third omission in original) (quoting Dailey v. State, 329 So. 3d 1280 , 1285 (Fla. 2021)); see also Jones, 709 So. 2d at 521 (establishing the two-part test to set aside a conviction based on n

2026For Harvey to overcome the time bar, he must show that at the time of trial any “newly discovered evidence” was “unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel . . . and it could not have been discovered through due diligence, and . . . that the evidence is of such a nature that it would probably . . . yield a less severe sentence on retrial.” Dillbeck v. State, 357 So. 3d 94 , 100 (Fla. 2023) (third omission in original) (quoting Dailey v. State, 329 So. 3d 1280 , 1285 (Fla. 2021)); see also Jones, 709 So. 2d at 521 (establishing the two-part test to set aside a conviction based on n

2018"To be considered timely filed as newly discovered evidence, the rule 3.851 motion was required to have been filed within one year of the date upon which the claim became discoverable through due diligence." Jimenez , 997 So.2d at 1064 (citing Mills v. State , 684 So.2d 801 , 804-05 (Fla. 1996) ). *478 If Jimenez is correct that the claims in his sixth successive postconviction motion do, in fact, arise from newly discovered evidence (which, as addressed below, they do not) and are, therefore, timely (which, as addressed below, they are not), several standards nevertheless stand between Jimene

2018“To be considered timely filed as newly discovered evidence, the rule 3.851 motion was required to have been filed within one year of the date upon which the claim became discoverable through due diligence.” Jimenez, 997 So. 2d at 1064 (citing Mills v. State, 684 So. 2d 801 , 804- 05 (Fla. 1996)).

2026For Harvey to overcome the time bar, he must show that at the time of trial any “newly discovered evidence” was “unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel . . . and it could not have been discovered through due diligence, and . . . that the evidence is of such a nature that it would probably . . . yield a less severe sentence on retrial.” Dillbeck v. State, 357 So. 3d 94 , 100 (Fla. 2023) (third omission in original) (quoting Dailey v. State, 329 So. 3d 1280 , 1285 (Fla. 2021)); see also Jones, 709 So. 2d at 521 (establishing the two-part test to set aside a conviction based on n

2023This Court has explained that an intellectual disability claim that is based on newly discovered evidence must be filed “within one year of the date upon which the claim became discoverable through due diligence.” Pittman v. State, 337 So. 3d 776 , 777 (Fla. 2022); see also Bowles, 276 So. 3d at 794 (affirming summary denial of untimely intellectual disability claim). -7- Dillbeck’s claim depends on his ND-PAE diagnosis.

2023The declaration and resolution that Melton argues are newly discovered evidence largely rely on pre-2021 studies and, in fact, the declaration recognizes that in 2015 the majority of the neuroscientific community accepted that the human brain was not fully developed until late adolescence. “ ‘[N]ew opinions or research studies based on a compilation or analysis of previously existing data and scientific information’ are not generally considered newly discovered evidence.” Dillbeck v. State, 357 So. 3d 94 , 99 (Fla. 2023) (alteration in original) (quoting Henry v. State, 125 So. 3d 745, 750 (Fl

2023The declaration and resolution that Melton argues are newly discovered evidence largely rely on pre-2021 studies and, in fact, the declaration recognizes that in 2015 the majority of the neuroscientific community accepted that the human brain was not fully developed until late adolescence. “ ‘[N]ew opinions or research studies based on a compilation or analysis of previously existing data and scientific information’ are not generally considered newly discovered evidence.” Dillbeck v. State, 357 So. 3d 94 , 99 (Fla. 2023) (alteration in original) (quoting Henry v. State, 125 So. 3d 745, 750 (Fl

2022See Dillbeck v. State, 304 So. 3d 286 , 288 (Fla. 2020).

2017We note that Duckett’s case was not included in the 2014 OIG Report. -8- a conclusion that a hair came from a single person to the exclusion of anyone else.” Id.

2017See Jimenez v. State, 997 So. 2d 1056, 1064 (Fla. 2008) (“To be considered timely filed as newly discovered evidence, [a] successive rule 3.851 motion [is] required to have been filed within one year of the date upon which the claim became discoverable through due diligence.”); see also Long v. State, 183 So. 3d 342, 347 (Fla. 2016) (“Therefore, because Long failed to timely file this motion after he was first notified as to the problems with Malone and his inadequate forensic work, we find that the postconviction court’s summary denial was proper.”).

2013Further, “[t]o be considered timely filed as newly discovered evidence, the successive 3.851 motion was required to have been filed within one year of the date upon which the claim became discoverable through due diligence.” Jimenez v. State, 997 So.2d 1056, 1064 (Fla.2008); Clark v. State, 35 So.3d 880, 892 (Fla.2010) (citing rule 3.851(d)(2)(A) in holding that “[cjlaims of newly discovered evidence must be raised within one year of the time of discovery.”).