CATO v. STATE (2021)

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”).

Per Curiam.

Ray, C.J., and Lewis and Jay, JJ., concur.