Opinion ID: 2757661
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Red Shorts

Text: Blake asserts that the State suppressed the fact that a pair of shorts collected from Green on August 12, 2002, were red. Blake contends that while several documents produced by the State indicated that a pair of shorts had been collected from Green, only one document—titled “bench notes”—from the Florida - 57 - Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) described the color of the shorts. The postconviction court concluded that although it “seems likely that counsel was not provided with any documentation showing law enforcement had described Mr. Green’s shorts as being red,” Blake did not show that the State suppressed evidence with regard to the color of Mr. Green’s shorts. Postconviction Order at 66. The postconviction court did not err in denying this claim. Blake relies solely on attorney Colon’s testimony that he could not “specifically remember” whether the State provided him with a copy of the bench notes to support his claim that the notes were not disclosed. “A petitioner has the burden of demonstrating each prong of a Brady violation.” Archer v. State, 934 So. 2d 1187, 1202 (Fla. 2006). In Archer, this Court concluded that defense counsel’s testimony that he “[didn’t] have any independent recollection” and “[didn’t] recall if [he] was aware or not” of evidence about a codefendant’s involvement in a violent burglary “did not establish . . . that evidence of the Mississippi burglary was not disclosed.” Id. at 1202-03. Likewise, here, counsel’s lack of memory does not establish that the State failed to provide defense counsel with a copy of the FDLE bench notes. Blake has offered only speculation that the State suppressed the FDLE bench notes.