MILFORD CHARLES
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.
A defendant cannot rely on newly discovered evidence in a Rule 3.850 motion when that evidence could have been discovered through diligent investigation at the time of trial.
[1] Newly discovered evidence does not qualify for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 when the evidence could have been discovered through the exercise of…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“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”
Standard for newly discovered evidence under Rule 3.850
Milford Charles was convicted in 2007 of robbery with a deadly weapon and sentenced to thirty years as a habitual felony offender. He filed a Rule 3.8…
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 Newly Discovered Evidence Claim 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.
________________
No. 3D24-2288 Lower Tribunal No. F06-40686 ________________
Milford Charles, Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carlos Lopez, Judge.
Milford Charles, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Daihana Chang, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LOBREE, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
In 2007, Appellant Milford Charles was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to thirty years in prison as a habitual felony offender. His conviction and sentence were affirmed. See Charles v. State, 20 So. 3d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Charles then filed several postconviction motions—which were also affirmed. See Charles v. State, 251 So. 3d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Charles v. State, 199 So. 3d 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Charles v. State, 84 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Charles v. State, 23 So. 3d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).
Charles now appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He alleges newly discovered evidence—a supplemental police report issued in 2006—exonerates him. Yet this information could have been discovered through a diligent request. See Valentine v. State, 339 So. 3d 311, 314 (Fla. 2022); Rupp v. State, 280 So. 3d 496, 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). Failure to do so bars his claim. See Tompkins v. State, 994 So. 2d 1072, 1086 (Fla. 2008) (“[T]he 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.”); Demps v. State, 515 So. 2d 196, 198 (Fla. 1987) (“Rule 3.850 bars an untimely
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tompkins v. State, 994 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 2008)
- Bennie Demps v. State, 515 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1987)
- Milford Charles v. State, 20 So. 3d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Rupp v. State, 280 So. 3d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)