lied at trial and the prosecutor told them what to say. Hartley’s argument here is based on Johnson’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing. This issue is procedurally barred. To the extent Hartley’s postconviction motion raised a Giglio claim, he did not amend it with a sworn and legally sufficient claim. To the extent this is a newly discovered evidence claim, Hartley similarly did not amend his postconviction motion to raise it. Further, the circuit court’s order denying relief did not even mention Johnson’s testimony or this claim, and Hartley did not identify this issue in his motion for rehearing. Thus, the court was never presented with and never ruled on the claim argued here. As a result, the claim is not cognizable on appeal. See Cave v. State, 899 So.2d 1042, 1052 (Fla.2005) (<HOLDING>). Even if the claim was preserved, it fails on
holding seventh state petition for postconviction relief which was based on newly discovered evidence but rejected by the state courts because the evidence was not newly discovered was properly filed holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal holding that because defendant did not raise a newly discovered evidence claim or amend his postconviction motion after the evidentiary hearing the issue was not timely presented to the trial court and was not cognizable on appeal holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence holding that a party may not raise a claim on appeal that was not presented to the trial court