79 So. 3d 112
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
2012
PER CURIAM.

We affirm with prejudice the summary denial of appellant’s untimely postconviction motion. The alleged “newly discovered evidence,” that jury selection was not transcribed for the direct appeal in 1994, could have been discovered with due diligence within the two-year time limit. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1).

Affirmed.

WARNER, POLEN and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.