Court Opinion

ID: 9408333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 15:06:07.821121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:43.257551
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed July 12, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D23-744
                      Lower Tribunal No. F13-1586B
                          ________________

                         Keyon L. Richardson,
                                  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, Ramiro C. Areces, Judge.

     Keyon L. Richardson, in proper person.

     Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
     Affirmed. 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 . . . ‘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. Second, the newly discovered

evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal

on retrial.’” (quoting Tompkins v. State, 994 So. 2d 1072, 1086 (Fla. 2008)));

Scott v. Dugger, 634 So. 2d 1062, 1065 (Fla. 1993) (“[W]e find that the

evidence asserted as new in these proceedings is not newly discovered

evidence.”).

                                      2