"This Court has previously stated that we will not disturb a trial justice's factual findings made on an application for post[ ]conviction relief absent clear error or a showing that the trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence in arriving at those findings." Dominick v. State , 139 A.3d 426, 431 (R.I. 2016) (quoting Bell v. State , 71 A.3d 458, 460 (R.I. 2013) ). However, this Court will "review de novo any post[ ]conviction[-]relief decision involving questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact pertaining to an alleged violation of an applicant's constitutional rights.
'"In applications for postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence, [the Court uses] the same standard of review as in a motion for [a] new trial based on newly discovered evidence."' Dominick v. State, 139 A.3d 426, 431 (R.I. 2016) (quoting D'Alessio v. State, 101 A.3d 1270, 1275 (R.I. 2014)). The standard is split into two parts, and the first applies a four-part threshold test: the new evidence must "'be (1) newly discovered and not available at the time of trial; (2) it must not have been discoverable by due diligence; (3) it must be material, not simply cumulative or impeaching; and (4) it must be of the type that would likely change the verdict at trial.'"