RAUDEL ROBINSON
v.
THE 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.
A successive post-conviction motion alleging newly discovered evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate that the evidence was truly unknown and could not have been discovered with due diligence at the time of trial.
[1] In a successive post-conviction motion, a defendant must show that alleged newly discovered evidence was unknown to the court, parties, and counsel at the time of trial a…
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 intelligenceRaudel Robinson appealed the denial of his second or successive motion for post-conviction relief, which alleged newly discovered evidence and ineffec…
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 Plea Negotiations cases and more on FLexlaw
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 postconviction 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
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Morgan v. State, 912 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Placide v. State, 189 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Martinez v. State, 265 So. 3d 690 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
- Rivero v. State, 15 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)