Defendant offered only hearsay as to what Aguilera said to him, Mendoza v. State, 87 So.3d 644, 665 (Fla. 2011), and this Court finds it incredible that a witness who could have exonerated Defendant materialized days after sentencing. See Sandoval v. State, 225 So.3d 962, 963 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). Accordingly, Defendant is not entitled to relief on Ground Two[.]
See Sandoval v. State, 225 So.3d 962, 963 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding that the postconviction court properly considered the inconsistency in the witnesses' statements when finding the testimony incredible). Furthermore, any testimony from Ms. Farris regarding the threat would have