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
