misadvice by his attorney, not failure to advise, as to the potential for enhanced penalties for future criminal behavior. Although the question addressed in Major is different from the issue presented in this case, based upon the importance of this related issue, we also certify the following question of great public importance: WHETHER ALLEGATIONS OF AFFIRMATIVE MISADVICE BY TRIAL COUNSEL ON THE SENTENCE-ENHANCING CONSEQUENCES OF A DEFENDANT’S PLEA FOR FUTURE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IN AN OTHERWISE FACIALLY SUFFICIENT MOTION ARE COGNIZABLE AS AN INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIM. AFFIRMED; QUESTION CERTIFIED. PADOVANO, J., concurs; ALLEN, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part. 1 . Hallman has been abrogated on other grounds. See Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911 (Fla.1991)(<HOLDING>). 2 . Although we find the petition timely
holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence holding that newly discovered evidence must be such that it would probably rather than conclusively produce an acquittal at trial holding that newly discovered evidence must be that which existed at the time of trial but for an excusable reason was not discoverable until later holding that posttrial discovery of asserted newly discovered evidence did not satisfy the requirement that the evidence must be such as with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and produced at trial holding that to justify a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence 1 the evidence must have been discovered after trial 2 the failure to discover this evidence must not be attributable to a lack of due diligence on the part of the movant 3 the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching 4 the evidence must be material and 5 the evidence must be likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted