Smith v. State

Full title: Datoral Smith, Appellant, v. The State of Florida, Appellee.

Court: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Date published: Sep 7, 2016

208 So. 3d 140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

Opinion

No. 3D15–450.

09-07-2016

Datoral SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Eugene F. Zenobi, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Third Region, and Kristen Kawass, Assistant Regional Counsel, for appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Brent J. Kelleher, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Eugene F. Zenobi, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Third Region, and Kristen Kawass, Assistant Regional Counsel, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Brent J. Kelleher, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Farina v. State, 937 So.2d 612, 622 (Fla.2006) ("[T]he trial court is required to consider all newly discovered evidence which would be admissible at trial and then evaluate the weight of both the newly discovered evidence and the evidence which was introduced at the trial. When reviewing a court's application of the above law to a rule 3.850 motion following an evidentiary hearing, we apply the following standard of review: As long as the trial court's findings are supported by competent substantial evidence, [we] will not substitute [our] judgment ... on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the witnesses ....") (citations and quotations omitted) (emphasis deleted).