Full Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 6D2026-1267 Lower Tribunal No. 1998-CF-000546 _____________________________ CARLOS JENNIS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________ Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Highlands County. David V. Ward, Judge. September 25, 2026 PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911, 915 (Fla. 1991) (“[I]n order to provide relief [under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(1)], the newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.” (emphasis added and omitted)); Coppola v. State, 938 So. 2d 507, 511 (Fla. 2006) (“[T]he term ‘fact’ [in rule 3.850(b)(1)] refers to evidence that tends to prove or disprove guilt or innocence.” (emphasis added)); Agan v. State, 560 So. 2d 222, 222-23 (Fla. 1990) (“The [public records] act was equally available . . . prior to January 1, 1987, the cut off date for post-conviction relief in the instant case. Rule 3.850 bars an untimely petition based on information previously ascertainable through the exercise of due diligence.” (quoting Demps v. State, 515 So. 2d 196, 198 (Fla. 1987))); Gadson v. State, 429 So. 3d 1052, 1053-54 & n.3 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025) (“Rule 3.850(b)(1) provides that a motion may not be filed more than two years after the judgment and sentence become final unless ‘the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or the movant’s attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.’ Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1) (emphasis added). We interpret the rule to require that the newly discovered fact was unknown to both the movant and the movant’s attorney. [n.3 We will assume, without deciding, that an unconveyed plea offer is a ‘fact[] on which the claim is predicated.’] . . . . Perhaps the rule should permit a newly discovered evidence claim based on an unconveyed plea offer despite counsel’s knowledge. But that is not for this court to decide. Only the Florida Supreme Court has authority to amend the rule.” (citations omitted)), rev. granted, No. SC2025- 1824, 2026 WL 765437 (Fla. Mar. 17, 2026). TRAVER, C.J., and MIZE and PRATT, JJ., concur. Carlos Jennis, Miami, pro se. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED 2