Court Opinion

ID: 9892930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 16:04:39.500636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:40.417185
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                       Opinion filed October 25, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D23-0293
                      Lower Tribunal No. F02-35678
                          ________________

                           Kendal Ian Major,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                         The State of Florida,
                                  Appellee.

      An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from
the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Joseph D. Perkins, Judge.

     Ana M. Davide, P.A., and Ana M. Davide, for appellant.

      Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521 (Fla. 1998) (“Two

requirements must be met in order for a conviction to be set aside on the

basis of newly discovered evidence. 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.’ Torres–

Arboleda v. Dugger, 636 So. 2d 1321, 1324-25 (Fla.1994). Second, the

newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably

produce an acquittal on retrial.”); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1) (providing that

a claim for postconviction relief must be filed no later than two years after the

judgment and sentence become final “unless it alleges that. . . the facts on

which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or the movant’s

attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due

diligence, and the claim is made within 2 years of the time the new facts were

or could have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence”).

                                       2