Glen Edward Rogers v. State of Florida, 327 So.3d 784

In 1995 Glen Edward Rogers murdered Tina Marie Cribbs in a Tampa motel; he was convicted of first‑degree murder, armed robbery, and grand theft and received a death sentence after a unanimous jury recommendation.
At penalty phase Rogers presented mitigation including expert testimony of brain damage and porphyria and testimony from family members.
Rogers’ conviction and sentence became final in 2001; he has unsuccessfully pursued multiple state and federal postconviction petitions; this appeal arises from a third successive rule 3.851 motion.
The third successive motion alleged newly discovered evidence: long‑suppressed memories of repeated childhood sexual abuse (in Hamilton, Ohio and at TICO) that Rogers claims surfaced in 2019 after discussions with clemency counsel and a criminologist.
The trial court summarily denied the motion under prong one of the Jones test, finding the evidence could have been discovered earlier through due diligence (noting trial counsel knew of Rogers’ siblings and preexisting articles about TICO).
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding the alleged abuse and published TICO reports did not qualify as newly discovered evidence and an evidentiary hearing was not required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether alleged childhood sexual‑abuse evidence is "newly discovered" under Jones prong one	Rogers: memories were repressed and first became known in 2019, so they are newly discovered	State: trial counsel knew Rogers’ siblings (who allegedly knew), and TICO articles were published pre‑trial; evidence discoverable with due diligence	Denied—court held evidence was not newly discovered because counsel could have discovered it with due diligence
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the 3.851 motion	Rogers: his claim warranted a hearing to develop factual issues	State: the motion and record refute the claim, making summary denial proper	Denied—no hearing required; summary denial proper when record refutes facial sufficiency
Whether the timeliness exception to rule 3.851(d)(1) applies (delayed discovery)	Rogers: delayed discovery (repression) should excuse untimeliness	State: exceptions inapplicable because evidence isn’t newly discovered and was discoverable earlier; court declined to extend Hearndon to this context	Denied—the court noted timeliness rule but resolved claim on lack of newly discovered evidence; Hearndon not extended to criminal postconviction relief

Jones v. State, 709 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1998) (establishes two‑part test for newly discovered evidence in postconviction context)
Hearndon v. Graham, 767 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 2000) (applies delayed‑discovery doctrine for childhood sexual‑abuse claims in intentional‑tort cases)
Long v. State, 183 So.3d 342 (Fla. 2016) (reiterates Jones test and standards for facial sufficiency)
Pardo v. State, 108 So.3d 558 (Fla. 2012) (explains when an evidentiary hearing is required on a 3.851 motion)
Tompkins v. State, 994 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 2008) (discusses standards for reviewing postconviction claims and Jones analysis)
McDonald v. State, 296 So.3d 382 (Fla. 2020) (permits summary denial where motion, files, and record refute newly discovered‑evidence claim)
Rodgers v. State, 288 So.3d 1038 (Fla. 2019) (supports summary denial where record contradicts claim)
Bogle v. State, 288 So.3d 1065 (Fla. 2019) (same)
Rogers v. State, 783 So.2d 980 (Fla. 2001) (direct appeal affirming conviction and sentence)