Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require the law of Hurst v. State to be factored into the analysis of the likelihood of a less severe sentence at a new penalty phase at which the newly discovered evidence is introduced?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED--CAPITAL CASE ; : Context ; Under Florida law, post conviction relief is available when it is shown that: 1) newly discovered evidence exists that was : not previously available despite the defendant’s exercise of due diligence, and 2) it is probable that at a new trial and/or a new penalty phase that if the new evidence is introduced either the result will be an acquittal or at least a less severe sentence.' To decide whether a new trial or resentencing should, be ordered, the reviewing court must look to whether the new \ trial or resentencing, if granted, would probably produce a different outcome. Armstrong v. State, 642 So. 2d 730, 735 (Fla. 1994) (“Only when it appears that, on a new trial, the witness's testimony will change to such an extent as to render probable a different verdict will a new trial be granted.”). When a : resentencing is sought on a newly discovered evidence claim, the : court looks to see whether it is likely that the outcome of a resentencing would produce a less severe sentence, i.e. here, a ; life sentence.? n