AHMAD MILTON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ahmad Milton appealed the denial of his post-conviction motion seeking to vacate his conviction and sentence based on newly-discovered evidence and an alleged Brady violation. The court affirmed the trial court's denial, finding that the employment records at issue were known to Milton and his counsel at trial and equally accessible to both the defense and prosecution, thus failing to constitute newly-discovered evidence or evidence withheld in violation of Brady.
The trial court properly denied the motion because the employment records do not constitute newly-discovered evidence and no Brady violation occurred. The records were known to Milton and his attorney at trial and were equally accessible to both the defense and prosecution.
[1] Newly-discovered evidence for post-conviction relief must not have been known by the trial court, the party, or counsel at the time of trial, and must appear that the def…
[2] Newly-discovered evidence must be of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial to warrant post-conviction relief.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If a defendant seeks to make a newly discovered evidence claim, he must timely file a postconviction motion based on newly discovered evidence to vacate his judgment and sentence and meet a two-prong test . . . First, the evidence must not have been known by the trial court, the party, or counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that the defendant or defense counsel could not have known of it by the use of diligence.”
Establishes the legal standard for newly-discovered evidence claims in Florida post-conviction relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMilton moved for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, seeking to vacate his conviction and sentence based on employm…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reasonable Diligence cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed September 17, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Nos. 3D25-1436 & 3D25-14371 Lower Tribunal No. F06-11426
Ahmad Milton, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Richard Hersch, Judge.
Ahmad Milton, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCALES, C.J., and GORDO and GOODEN, JJ.
GORDO, J.
Ahmad Milton (“Milton”) appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2). In his motion, Milton sought to vacate his conviction and sentence based upon newly-discovered evidence and upon an alleged Brady² violation. He further alleged his counsel was ineffective for failing to seek the evidence. Based on the unrefuted record, which shows the subject employment records were not only equally accessible to the defense and the prosecution but known by Milton and his attorney at the time of trial, we find the trial court properly denied the motion, finding the records do not constitute newly-discovered evidence and no Brady violation occurred. Thus, we affirm.3 State, 183 So. 3d 342, 345 (Fla. 2016) (“If a defendant seeks to make a newly discovered evidence claim, he must timely file a postconviction motion based on newly discovered evidence to vacate his judgment and sentence and meet a twoprong test First, the evidence must not have been known by the trial court, the party, or counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that the defendant or defense counsel could not have known of it by the use of
diligence. Second, the newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.”) (citation omitted); Smith v. State, 275 So. 3d 843, 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (“A Brady claim is cognizable in a postconviction motion.”); Maharaj v. State, 778 So. 2d 944, 954 (Fla. 2000) (“[A] Brady claim cannot stand if a defendant knew of the evidence allegedly withheld or had possession of it, simply because the evidence cannot then be found to have been withheld from the defendant." (quoting Occhicone v. State, 768 So. 2d 1037, 1042 (Fla. 2000))); Provenzano v. State, 616 So. 2d 428, 430 (Fla. 1993) (“There is no Brady violation where the information is equally accessible to the defense and the prosecution, or where the defense either had the information or could have obtained it through the exercise of reasonable diligence.").
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963)
- Occhicone v. State, 768 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2000)
- Krishna Maharaj v. State, 778 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 2000)
- Provenzano v. State, 616 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1993)
- Smith v. State, 275 So. 3d 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)