against Mr. Dicta-do. There is no indication that he has ever changed his story. And whether or not he and Mr. Dictado have been held in the same prison, they are acquaintances and could have corresponded during the more than 15 years since their arrests. Moreover, ‘newly discovered evidence’ does not warrant a new trial unless it would probably change the result. State v. Williams, 96 Wash.2d 215, 223, 634 P.2d 868 (1981). Mr. Guloy’s affidavit[ ] would not change the result of Mr. Dic-tado’s trial.... In short, Mr. Dictado has not shown that the Acting Chief Judge erred in dismissing his personal restraint petition or that review is otherwise called for under RAP 13.5(b). The motion for discretionary review is denied. In re Dictado, No. 65198-1, upp.2d 1035, 1039-41 (N.D.Ill.1998) (<HOLDING>); Souch v. Harkins, 21 F.Supp.2d 1083, 1086
holding that seventh application for postconviction relief which was rejected because evidence on which it was based was not properly authenticated was properly filed holding that second state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as frivolous and patently without merit was properly filed holding that second state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as an abuse of the writ was properly filed holding that a second or subsequent state petition for postconviction relief filed according to the procedural rules of the state constitutes a properly filed application  without regard to the merits of the petition holding that third state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as an abuse of the writ was properly filed