Milford Charles, Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee. (2025)

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 petition based on information previously ascertainable through the exercise of due diligence.”).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.