WIMBLERY v. STATE (2024)

Appellant, Rodrick Wimblery, appeals from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief alleging newly discovered evidence. Putting aside any failure to exercise due diligence, our review of the record yields the conclusion the trial court's finding that the claim did not meet “the second, critical requirement of the two-part test established for newly discovered evidence” is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Poff v. State, 41 So. 3d 1062, 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); see also Long v. State, 183 So. 3d 342, 345 (Fla. 2016) (“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 [a] nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.”) (quoting Tompkins v. State, 994 So. 2d 1072, 1086 (Fla. 2008)). “This Court, as an appellate body, has no authority to substitute its view of the facts for that of the trial judge when competent evidence exists to support the trial judge's conclusion.” State v. Spaziano, 692 So. 2d 174, 175 (Fla. 1997). Accordingly, we affirm the order denying relief.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.