Court Opinion

ID: 9375970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 16:02:45.171346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:03.532560
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed March 1, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1211
                      Lower Tribunal No. F05-5281A
                          ________________

                           Raudel Robinson,
                                  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, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge.

     Raudel Robinson, in proper person.

      Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kseniya Smychkouskaya,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Raudel Robinson appeals the trial court’s “Order Denying ‘Defendant’s

Second or Successive Motion for Post-Conviction Relief Newly Discovered

Evidence/Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.’”

      Upon review of the record and the previous filings by Robinson and

dispositions by this Court thereof, we affirm. See Placide v. State, 189 So.

3d 810, 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (finding that the information in an affidavit

alleging the jurors were witnessed prejudging the case could have been

discovered with due diligence and was inherently incredible because the

affiant was a close family friend who withheld this knowledge for 21 years);

Rivero v. State, 15 So. 3d 625, 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (holding that

defendant was not entitled to a hearing on his second post-conviction motion

based on alleged newly discovered evidence of ineffective assistance of

counsel during plea negotiations, as there was no allegation or proof that the

“newly discovered evidence” was unknown to the court, parties, or counsel

at the time of trial and could not have been timely discovered with due

diligence); see also Martinez v. State, 265 So. 3d 690, 693 (Fla. 1st DCA

2019) (finding that the record conclusively refuted defendant’s post-

conviction claim that his defense counsel failed to communicate pretrial plea

offers ranging from 5 to 10 years in prison in exchange for a guilty plea,

where the record reflected counsel for both parties denied the existence of

                                      2
any plea offers at the onset of jury selection); Morgan v. State, 912 So. 2d

642, 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (holding that defendant failed to show that trial

counsel’s alleged failure to communicate a plea offer to him was newly

discovered evidence that could be considered under the exception to the

two-year time limit for filing a motion for post-conviction relief, where the

defendant failed to allege how he obtained information about the plea offer

and why he could not have obtained it earlier by the use of due diligence

within the two-year period).

      Affirmed.

                                      3