Melton v. Florida
Annotate this CaseAppellant, a death row prisoner, challenged the circuit court’s order denying his successive motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and 3.851. Appellant argued that his codefendant's statements that he saw a struggle between appellant and the victim before the victim was shot, and that he had a plea agreement in place at the time of trial, constitute newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial. Having considered appellant’s newly discovered evidence and the evidence that could be introduced at a new trial, including the evidence introduced in appellant’s prior postconviction proceedings, the court agreed with the circuit court’s conclusions that there is no probability of an acquittal on retrial. The court also concluded that appellant's argument regarding the cumulative effect of the new evidence on the outcome of the penalty phase is also without merit. The court affirmed the circuit court's denial of relief on appellant's claims under United States v. Giglio because appellant did not demonstrate that the codefendant's testimony was false and thus failed to establish the prosecutor's knowledge of any such false testimony, and Brady v. Maryland where his claim is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the circuit court's order denying appellant's successive motion for postconviction relief.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.