Milford Charles v. State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: September 17, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-2288
• Status: Published

Opinion

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. 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 post-

conviction 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

2 petition based on information previously ascertainable through the exercise

of due diligence.”).

Affirmed.