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.
Employment records do not constitute newly discovered evidence and no Brady violation occurs when the records were equally accessible to the defense and prosecution and were known to the defendant and his counsel at the time of trial.
[1] A Brady violation cannot be established when the allegedly withheld evidence was equally accessible to the defense and prosecution or when the defense had possession of t…
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“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.”
Court citing Provenzano v. State, 616 So. 2d 428, 430 (Fla. 1993) to establish the standard for Brady violations.
Ahmad Milton appealed the denial of his postconviction motion seeking to vacate his conviction and sentence based on newly discovered employment recor…
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 Brady Violation 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.