JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN PETITION
AND GRANT HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF
This is an original action under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.l00(a). See Art. l, Sec. 13, Fla. Const. This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(3) and Article V, Section 3(b)(9) of the Florida Constitution. This petition presents constitutional issues which directly concern the judgment of this Court during the appellate process, the trial and sentencing and the legality of Mr. Ajoloko minimum mandatory sentence. This Court has jurisdiction, see, (need to cite case law) because the fundamental constitutional errors challenged herein arise in the context of a felonious case in which this Court heard and denied Mr. Ajoloko direct appeal. See (Need to cite case law)
This Court has the inherent power to do justice. The ends of justice call on the Court to grant the relief sought in this case, as the Court has done in similar cases in the past. The petition pleads claims involving fundamental constitutional error. See (Need to cite law) This Court’s exercise of its habeas corpus jurisdiction and of its authority to correct constitutional errors is warranted in this action. As the petition shows, habeas corpus relief is proper on the basis of Mr. Ajoloko claims.
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. (Need to cite case law). 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]”.(Need to cite case law).
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. (Need to cite case law) 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. Petitioner’s mother, Pamela Ajoloko and Fran Viselli of Holy Spirit pointed out to the appellate counsel that he had gotten very important facts incorrect. (Please note that both initial briefs are with this petition).
Charles and I are still trying to put together his Habeas Corpus. We are in dire need of Pro-Bono or an attorney willing to take payments. Time is of the essence. Meanwhile, Charles continues to try his best to do his Habeas Corpus, Pro Se.
Please like Facebook Page Charles Ajoloko is Innocent under the realm of the Wrongly Convicted Group. Also visit:
Blog – http://justiceformyson2.com
Email – email@example.com
PO Box 70111
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35407
Also Vine, Instagram and Twitter Accounts