Opinion ID: 2757661
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Brady Claims Relating to Demetrius

Text: Blake contends that the State failed to disclose the plea agreement offered to Demetrius in exchange for his testimony at Blake’s trial and failed to disclose that Castillo provided assistance to Demetrius. Again, as discussed above, Blake did not establish that Demetrius was given a plea offer or assisted by Castillo prior to Blake’s conviction. Accordingly, Blake has not demonstrated that evidence of - 56 - such a plea agreement or assistance was suppressed for purposes of Blake’s guilt phase trial. See Mungin v. State, 932 So. 2d 986, 998 n.10 (Fla. 2006) (“[T]he warrants were recalled in February 1993, after Mungin’s trial. The State could not suppress information that was not available.”). In addition, Blake alleges that the State failed to disclose that Demetrius was arrested on a motion to hold him as a material witness. The record refutes Blake’s claim. Defense postconviction exhibit 5 included a December 19, 2003, order— from Blake’s case—indicating that the trial judge held a hearing on the State’s claim that Demetrius had “information material to [the] issues in the proceedings” and would conceal himself in an effort to avoid testifying. In the order, the trial court directed that Demetrius be held in custody or post bond of $10,000. The order further noted that a copy of the order was sent to “Atty Gill Colon for the defendant.” Blake does not contend that for some reason this order was not delivered. Accordingly, Blake has not demonstrated that Demetrius’ arrest as a material witness was suppressed.