CARL JOHNSON,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Due Diligence Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1) (A claim of newly discovered evidence must be brought “within [two] years of the time the new facts were or could have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence.”); see Johnston v. State, 27 So. 3d 11, 18 (Fla. 2010) (“[T]he 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.”); Davis v. State, 26 So. 3d 519, 526 (Fla. 2009) (same); see also Berry v. State, 175 So. 3d 896, 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (affirming denial of post-conviction relief where defendant failed to establish that the newly discovered evidence was unknown to defendant, his counsel and the court at trial and could not have been discovered within the two-year period through the exercise of due diligence).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 26 So. 3d 519 (Fla. 2009)
- Berry v. State, 175 So. 3d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)