Full Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D19-1145 _____________________________ JUSTIN A. MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. Angela C. Dempsey, Judge. April 26, 2021 PER CURIAM. Justin A. Martinez appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. First, Mr. Martinez argues the trial court erred in denying his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. To prevail on such a claim, a defendant must demonstrate that defense counsel’s performance was deficient, and that the defendant was prejudiced by that deficiency. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). To satisfy the first prong, “[t]he defendant must allege specific facts that, when considering the totality of the circumstances, are not conclusively rebutted by the record and that demonstrate a deficiency on the part of counsel which is detrimental to the defendant.” Blackwood v. State, 946 So. 2d 960, 968 (Fla. 2006) (citing LeCroy v. Dugger, 727 So. 2d 236, 239 (Fla. 1998)). And to succeed on the prejudice prong, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. The defendant must demonstrate a likelihood of a different result which is substantial and not just conceivable. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 112 (2011). On the record before us, we conclude Mr. Martinez failed to satisfy this standard, and we affirm the trial court’s denial of his ineffective assistance claims. Second, Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying his claim for relief based on newly discovered evidence. To grant a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence, the postconviction court must find, first, that the evidence was not known at the time of trial and could not have been known at the time of trial by the use of due diligence. Preston v. State, 970 So. 2d 789, 797 (Fla. 2007). Second, the evidence at issue must be “of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.” Id. (citing Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521 (Fla. 1998)). Given this standard, we conclude the trial court properly denied Mr. Martinez’s claim. AFFIRMED. ROBERTS, NORDBY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ Michael Ufferman, Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant. 2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 3