Johnny Mack Sketo Calhoun v. State of Florida, 376 So.3d 583

In 2012 Calhoun was convicted of the 2010 first‑degree murder and kidnapping of Mia Chay Brown; jury recommended death (9–3) and the trial court sentenced him to death and 100 years; convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
Calhoun pursued postconviction relief under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851; after proceedings and application of Hurst‑related law, this Court vacated his death sentence and ordered a new penalty phase (Calhoun II).
While Calhoun II was pending, he filed a successive 3.851 motion alleging newly discovered evidence: that Doug Mixon confessed in jail (to inmate Keith Ellis) to murdering the victim and framed Calhoun.
The circuit court held a limited evidentiary hearing; after hearing Mixon, Ellis, and another witness, the court found Mixon did not confess and denied relief as the alleged confession lacked credibility and would not likely produce an acquittal.
Calhoun then sought additional public records under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.852(i) (prison incident reports July–Oct 2017) to corroborate the alleged jailhouse confession; the court denied the records request as untimely and not tied to a colorable, ongoing postconviction claim.
The Florida Supreme Court (per curiam) affirmed both denials on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Calhoun)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether alleged jailhouse confession by Doug Mixon is newly discovered evidence warranting relief	The Mixon→Ellis confession is newly discovered and would likely produce acquittal on retrial	The alleged confession is not credible, was known or discoverable, and would not create reasonable doubt	Court: Denied — trial court credibility finding supported by competent, substantial evidence; second prong of Jones test not met
Whether court abused discretion by denying Calhoun’s 3.852(i) request for prison records	Records (incident reports) would corroborate Mixon’s threats/confession and support postconviction claim	Request was filed after postconviction proceedings concluded, was untimely, and does not relate to a colorable, pending claim	Court: Denied — no abuse of discretion; unjustified delay and lack of relation to an ongoing colorable claim

Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998) (articulates two‑prong test for newly discovered evidence)
Hildwin v. State, 141 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. 2014) (requires cumulative analysis of all evidence when evaluating newly discovered evidence)
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1973) (framework on admissibility and confrontation concerns for third‑party confessions)
Green v. State, 975 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 2008) (standard of review: competent, substantial evidence supports trial court factual findings)
Cruz v. State, 320 So. 3d 695 (Fla. 2021) (court will not substitute its judgment for trial court findings supported by competent, substantial evidence)
Ibar v. State, 190 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. 2016) (recognizes trial court’s superior vantage to assess witness demeanor and credibility)
Riechmann v. State, 777 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 2000) (upholds denial of newly discovered evidence where postconviction testimony is not credible)
Tompkins v. State, 872 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2003) (unjustified delay in seeking records can justify denial)
Sweet v. State, 293 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 2020) (records‑request rulings under rule 3.852 reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Hamilton v. State, 236 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 2018) (records sought must relate to a colorable claim for postconviction relief)