not attempted murder. I didn’t try to kill no one. I was defending a woman that was in distress.” Id. at 126. Dr. Calla-way’s March 9, 2014 report stated that Zamani “provided a coherent and plausible account of the alleged offense,” that he “identified potential witnesses and evidence in his case,” that he “indicated he had been offered a plea deal but he did not want to accept the terms,” that, “According to [Zamani], he had read the depositions and he had written out his defense strategies including questions for witnesses,” and that he ial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s belated motion to assert an insanity defense where the defendant did not make showing of good cause as required by statute)); see also Dudley v. State, 480 N.E.2d 881, 895 (Ind.1985) (<HOLDING>). Za-mani has not demonstrated he is entitled
holding that the defendants motion for discharge was premature and thus properly denied by the trial court holding that since trial had begun and the defendant failed to offer evidence rising to the level of good cause showing why the defense was not previously raised the trial court properly denied the appellants motion for psychiatric examination and noting the trial court had observed that the information learned by the defendants counsel was previously available and could not be considered newly discovered holding that upon remand if the trial court determined that the testimony in a newly discovered evidence claim was reliable the trial court must review that new evidence as well as brady claims that were previously rejected in a prior postconviction motion because the evidence was equally accessible to the defense and there was no reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different had the evidence been disclosed holding that the defendant did not demonstrate and our review of the record did not reveal that the defendant made a showing of good cause as to why his late notice should be accepted and as such the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendants belated oral motion to assert an insanity defense holding that affidavit from a new witness was not newly discovered evidence because trial counsel knew of the existence of the witness before trial trial counsel with due diligence could have discovered the evidence