Charles’ Preliminary Toughts on his Habeas Corpus

Well, this is my son’s first attempt at his Habeas Corpus(with a little help from mom)


CASE NO. ????-????

Charles Ajoloko,







No attorney yet

These are just layman ideas of my son and myself. It is far from finish. Probably wrong but So many claims to follow. Maybe too many. Expert Advice welcomed. Need to learn correct format.

I am trying to hel Charles by finding related case online and using it in his arguments 



Article l, Section 13 of the Florida Constitution provides: “The writ of habeas corpus shall be grantable of right, freely and without cost.” This petition for habeas corpus relief is filed to address substantial claims of error under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the corresponding provisions of the Florida Constitution. These claims demonstrate that Mr. Ajoloko was deprived of his rights to fair, reliable, and individualized trial and sentencing proceedings, and that the proceedings resulting in his conviction and sentence violated fundamental constitutional imperatives.  Mr.. Ajoloko has been sentenced to 12 years. His direct appeal was affirmed- per curiam.  The resolution of the issues involved in this petition will therefore determine whether he spends the remaining 10 years of his young, productive life in prison because he wasn’t given a fair and just trial.       


Significant errors which occurred at Mr. Ajoloko trial and sentencing were not presented to this Court on direct appeal due to the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The issues, which appellate counsel neglected, demonstrate that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiencies prejudiced Mr. Ajoloko “[E]xtant legal principles…provided a clear basis for … compelling appellate argument[s].” Additionally, this petition will also demonstrate that police and prosecutorial misconduct took place along with ineffective assistance of trial counsel. As this petition demonstrates, Mr. Ajoloko is entitled to habeas relief.

Fitzpatrick v.  Wainwright,  490  So.2d  938,  940  (Fla.  1986). Neglecting to raise fundamental issues such as those discussed herein “is far below the range of acceptable appellate performance and must undermine confidence in the fairness and correctness of the outcome.”  

Wilson v. Wainwriqht, 474 So.2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 1985).  Individually and “cumulatively,” Barclay v. Wainwriqht, 444 So.2d 956, 959 (Fla. 1984), the claims appellate counsel omitted establish that “confidence in the correctness and fairness of the result has been undermined.” Wilson, 474 So.2d at 1165 (emphasis in original). Additionally, this petition will also demonstrate that police and prosecutorial misconduct took place and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. This petition for Habeas Corpus demonstrates that Mr. Ajoloko is entitled to habeas relief.

Grounds for Habeas Corpus Relief

This Court had also held that harmless error analysis: requires an examination of the entire record by the appellate court including a close examination of the permissible evidence on which a jury could have legitimately relied, and in addition an even closer examination of the impermissible evidence which might have possibly influenced the verdict. Id. at 1135. Once error is found, it is presumed harmful unless the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error “did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable probability that the error contributed to the [verdict]”.DiGuilio, 491 So.2d at 1138.          

            Mr. Ajoloko recognizes that both this Court and the United States Supreme Court have held that appellate counsel need not file every available colorable claim and that space considerations may require counsel to winnow down his arguments. Wilson v. Wainwright, 474 So.2d 1162,1164 (Fla. 1985); Darden v. State, 475 So.2d 214,217 (Fla. 1985); Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 535-536 (1986). This is not a case where because of space considerations appellate counsel was forced to winnow down his arguments.

            Instead, appellate counsel’s brief represents a lackluster effort. The Initial Brief was 24 pages in length (despite a 50 page limit) and included large, sometimes full page, spaces in between each of the issues raised. Mr. Ajoloko family and members of Holy Spirit Catholic Church paid $18000 for this representation.  In fact, there were actually two briefs; the first brief was 23 pages. Charles’ mother pointed out to the appellate counsel that he had gotten a very important fact incorrect. (Please note that both initial briefs are with this petition). Mr. Ajoloko believes & feels that the lackluster effort of appellate counsel is due to the appellate counsel’s relationship with a previous attorney hired by Mr. Ajoloko.

 The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel, and the benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsels conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result. Trial counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. There is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

            Brady v. Maryland (U.S. 1963) held that a prosecutor under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments has a duty to disclose favorable evidence to defendants upon request, if the evidence is “material” to either guilt or punishment. The prosecutor did not disclose that the phone records had been subpoenaed with favorable results for the defense. United States v. Bagley (U.S. 1985): Refined Brady by holding that a prosecutor’s duty to disclose material favorable evidence exists regardless of whether the defendant makes a specific request. The Court said “favorable evidence” is “material” if there is a reasonable probability that disclosure of the evidence would have produced a different outcome. A “reasonable probability” is “a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”


Appellate counsel failed to ensure a complete appellate record. Appellate counsel only got the trial transcript, when Appellate requested that the original police records, sentencing and 911 tape be included.  Appellate has emails showing a request for those items. Appellate counsel was also email copies of the original police report. Rule 9.200(a) describes the content of the record on appeal that is to be transmitted to the appellate court for review. The rule provides that the clerk of the trial court will transmit a record consisting of “the original documents, exhibits, and transcript(s) of proceedings, if any, filed in the lower tribunal, except summonses, praecipes, subpoenas, returns, notices of hearing or of taking deposition, depositions, other discovery, and physical evidence.”6 Depending on the issue on appeal, a party — within 10 days of filing the notice of appeal — may make a special direction to the clerk to include additional documents or to exclude certain documents or exhibits in the record.


Appellate counsel failed to raise on appeal that the prosecution committed a Brady violation when the prosecution fail to tell the defense that the witness/victim went from a person who at 0% not being able to identify the suspect to 100% able to identify the suspect 2 ½ years later. Spicer v. Roxbury (4th Cir. 1999): Brady violation because prosecutors did not disclose witness’s prior inconsistent statement that he did not see the defendant.



Appellate counsel failed to request a Richardson or evidentiary hearing. The original police report says that the victim said that she could only see the eyes. She said that the assailant was wearing a hoodie and bandana that covered half his face. At trial, victim/witness said the nose, lip, cheeks looked familiar. Nondisclosure of the fact that a witness changes testimony constitutes a discovery violation requiring a Richardson hearing, the Florida Supreme Court said.



Appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on direct appeal that his judgment and sentences for one count of attempted robbery with a firearm and one count of aggravated assault with a firearm (on a single victim) constitute double jeopardy. A claim of double jeopardy constitutes a question of fundamental error that may be raised for the first time on direct appeal, even if not properly preserved. Bailey v. State, 21 So. 3d 147, 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (citing Crites v. State, 959 So. 2d 1265, 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)). As such, the failure to raise a valid double jeopardy claim on direct appeal may constitute ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. See Perri v. State, 154 So. 3d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (citing  Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1994)).


Appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to argue the fundamental error regarding the flawed and erroneous attempted robbery jury instructions. (Also, all of these claims will also fall under ineffective assistant of trial counsel).  

Part 2a was left out of the Attempted Robbery Instructions. See Florida instructions then Appellate Instructions

 Florida Statute



  • 777.04(1), Fla.Stat.


                        Use when attempt is charged or is a lesser included offense.

                        [To prove the crime of Attempt to Commit (crime charged), the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:]


                        Use when necessary to define “attempt” as an element of another crime (such as felony murder).

                        [In order to prove that the defendant attempted to commit the crime of (crime charged), the State must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:]


  1. (Defendant) did some act toward committing the crime of (crime attempted) that went beyond just thinking or talking about it.


  1. [He] [She] would have committed the crime except that

                         a.      [someone prevented [him] [her] from committing the crime of (crime charged).]

                         b.       [[he] [she] failed.] 

                        Defense. § 777.04(5)(a), Fla.Stat.

                        It is not an attempt to commit (crime charged) if the defendant abandoned [his] [her] attempt to commit the offense or otherwise prevented its commission, under circumstances indicating a complete and voluntary renunciation of [his] [her] criminal purpose. 

Lesser Included Offenses  No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. (Jury was also read lessor of robbery charges).




  • 777.04(1), Fla.Stat. 

To prove the crime of Attempted Robbery  with a Firearm,  the State must prove the following  two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 

  1. CHARLES AJOLOKO did some act toward committing the crime of Robbery with a Firearm  that went beyond just thinking  or talking  about it. 
  2. He would have committed the crime except that he failed.



It is not an attempt to commit  Robbery  with a Firearm  if the defendant abandoned his’ attempt to commit the offense  or otherwise prevented its commission, under circumstances indicating  a complete  and voluntary renunciation of his criminal  purpose.



Appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on appeal that the trial attorney had put in a timely motion (10 days) for a new trial. Appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sentencing court’s denial of the motion for a new trial. The motion for a new trial is the only mechanism currently available in many jurisdictions to supplement a trial record before appellate review.

The motion for new trial is a powerful tool for the unsuccessful litigant. It

is the only vehicle for preserving evidence and rulings not captured in the trial

court record so that it can be presented to the Court of Appeal. See CCP §657(4).

And the motion for new trial is underutilized–many are unaware that the motion

for new trial is proper after judgment without trial such as after the sustaining of a

demurrer, judgment on the pleadings, and summary judgment. A party must make

the motion because the trial court lacks the power to order a new trial on its own

motion. CCP §657; Fomco, Inc. v. Joe Maggio, Inc. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 162.



MORE CLAIMS TO COME. When there are so many, do we need to put all. Sometimes less is best????

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s