Well, Charles and I are at it again. We need help. We desperately need pro bono help. We are still awaiting confirmation from the Innocence Project.
So far, Charles and I have done a Preliminary Statement, Introduction, and Jurisdiction to Entertain Petition and Grant Habeas Corpus.
We are now trying to do the Grounds for Habeas Corpus 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. 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. Petitioner’s mother, Pamela Ajoloko pointed out to the appellate counsel that he had gotten very important facts 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 amount of caseload the appellate had at the time and possibly the appellate counsel’s relationship with a previous attorney hired by Mr. Ajoloko.
By his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Mr. Ajoloko asserts that his conviction and sentence and appeal which was affirmed during this Court’s appellate review process is in violation of his rights guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the corresponding provisions of the Florida Constitution.