on a principals theory. As the sole ground for relief alleged in his 3.850 motion, Hamilton alleges that there was insufficient evidence to support giving a principals instruction at trial, and that his trial counsel was therefore ineffective for failing to object to the instruction. We agree with the trial court that although the issue in Hamilton’s 3.850 motion is technically different than the issue decided by Hamilton’s direct appeal, the prior appeal also necessarily resolved Hamilton’s postconviction claim. In other words, if there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction using a principals theory, that same evidence would have been sufficient to justify giving the principals instruction in the first instance. See Johnson v. State, 985 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (<HOLDING>); Jackson v. State, 640 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 2d DCA
holding that insufficiency of evidence is reviewable even in a postconviction setting holding claim is not cognizable holding claim is cognizable 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 insufficiency of evidence not cognizable in postconviction claim