As to Mills’ first claim, the trial court found that the evidence Mills
presented met the test for newly discovered evidence as enunciated by this Court
in Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 5 19 (Fla. 1998). We agree. The evidence presented
by Anderson was unknown at the time of trial and neither Mills nor his counsel
could have discovered it with due diligence; the evidence would have been
admissible at trial, if only for impeachment; and the newly discovered evidence,
when considered in conjunction with the evidence at Mills’ trial and 3.850
proceedings, would have probably produced a different result at sentencing. The
State has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial judge in his
determination of this issue, See Mills v. State, 26 Fla. L. Weekly S275 (Fla. Apr.
25,2001). Therefore, we affirm that portion of the trial court’s order granting
Mills a new sentencing hearing.