REYNALDO R. CATO
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Newly discovered evidence must have been unknown by the trial court, the party, or counsel at trial, and the defendant or counsel must not have been able to discover it through diligence.
[1] To qualify as newly discovered evidence in a postconviction relief proceeding, the evidence must have been unknown by the trial court, the party, or counsel at the time o…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“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”
Standard for newly discovered evidence in postconviction relief proceedings
Reynaldo R. Cato was convicted in 2014 of burglary of a dwelling and filed a postconviction motion claiming newly discovered evidence. This was Cato's…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pro Se Litigant Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Reynaldo R. Cato appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in which he raised a claim of newly discovered evidence. We affirm. See Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521 (Fla. 1998) (explaining that 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” (internal marks omitted)). This is Cato’s third unsuccessful postconviction appeal following his 2014 judgment and sentence for burglary of a dwelling. Cato is warned that any future filings that this Court
determines to be frivolous or malicious may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a prohibition against any further pro se filings in this Court and a referral to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2019) (providing that “[a] prisoner who is found by a court to have brought a frivolous or malicious suit, action, claim, proceeding, or appeal . . . is subject to disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the Department of Corrections”). RAY, C.J., and LEWIS and JAY, JJ., concur. _____________________________