Jeremiah M. Rodgers v. State of Florida, 288 So.3d 1038

Appellant Jeremiah M. Rodgers (now Jenna Rodgers) is a death‑sentenced prisoner who previously pleaded guilty to first‑degree murder and knowingly waived a penalty‑phase jury and postconviction counsel; those waivers were affirmed on direct and collateral review.
Rodgers received a psychiatric diagnosis of gender dysphoria during an evaluation dated February 26, 2016.
Rodgers filed successive postconviction motions; Rodgers asserted gender dysphoria caused incompetence in a January 11, 2017 filing but did not press a newly discovered‑evidence claim at that time.
On December 4, 2018 Rodgers filed the successive Rule 3.851 motion at issue, asserting gender dysphoria is newly discovered evidence that would invalidate prior pleas/waivers (and thus permit Hurst relief).
The circuit court summarily denied the motion as untimely; the Florida Supreme Court reviewed the summary denial de novo and affirmed, concluding the claim was time‑barred and not newly discovered because the relevant symptoms were known and Rodgers failed to exercise due diligence.
The Court also reiterated that Rodgers’ valid waiver of postconviction counsel limits future filings: leave of the circuit court is required before filings or appointment of counsel in that court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Rodgers)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Timeliness of successive Rule 3.851 motion under newly discovered evidence one‑year rule	Gender dysphoria is newly discovered evidence; motion raises it timely	Rodgers knew of diagnosis between Feb 2016 and Jan 2017; December 2018 filing is outside one‑year	Motion is time‑barred; affirmed
Whether gender dysphoria qualifies as newly discovered evidence that undermines competency at plea/waivers	The diagnosis shows Rodgers was incompetent when pleading and waiving rights	Symptoms were in the record before plea/waivers; assigning a diagnostic label later is not newly discovered evidence	Not newly discovered; fails prong one of Jones II
Appropriateness of summary denial without evidentiary hearing	Rodgers needs a hearing to develop evidence on incompetency	Record conclusively refutes the newly discovered claim; no factual dispute requiring a hearing	Summary denial proper; no hearing required
Effect of prior valid waivers on relief and future filings	Seeks relief that would invalidate prior waivers (including Hurst relief)	Prior waivers were valid and preclude relief; future filings/counsel require leave	Waivers remain valid; future filings need circuit court leave and justification

Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016) (Supreme Court decision prompting review of jury sentencing requirements)
Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Florida decision applying Hurst)
Jimenez v. State, 997 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 2008) (one‑year deadline for newly discovered evidence in successive 3.851 motions)
Reed v. State, 116 So. 3d 260 (Fla. 2013) (standards for newly discovered evidence)
Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998) (Jones II) (due diligence and materiality requirements for newly discovered evidence)
Rodgers v. State, 934 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2006) (Rodgers I) (prior appeal reviewing plea/waivers)
Rodgers v. State, 3 So. 3d 1127 (Fla. 2009) (Rodgers II) (prior appeal)
Rodgers v. State, 242 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 2018) (Rodgers IV) (prior decision addressing waiver and Hurst relief)
Walton v. State, 3 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 2009) (standards for summary denial of successive 3.851 motions)