Charles Ajoloko’s allegations in his Habeas Corpus are sufficient for a belated appeal, new trial or dismissal.
Charles Ajoloko file a timely motion for a new trial.
Charles Ajoloko’s motion for a new trial was denied without an evidentiary hearing.
Charles Ajoloko filed a timely direct appeal. His direct appeal was denied.
Appellate Counsel neglected to raise several pertinent claims which may have changed to outcome of the Direct Appeal.
Charles Ajoloko filed a timely pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus rendering appellate counsel ineffective n his direct appeal. His pro se petition is under consideration.
In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court articulated a two-part standard for evaluating a defendant’s Sixth Amendment claim that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel at his criminal trial. To establish constitutional ineffectiveness of trial counsel under Strickland, a defendant must prove first that he did not receive reasonably competent assistance, and second, that but for the deficient performance of counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different.
When a jurisdiction provides an appeal of right, due process also guarantees the assistance of counsel on appeal. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 83 L.Ed.2d 821, 105 S.Ct. 830 (1985).
The due process provisions found in the Fifth and 14th amendments provide that the government shall not take a person’s life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The doctrine of substantive due process holds that the due process clause not only protects basic procedural rights, but also protects basic substantive rights.
While we wait for the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal to decide my son’s case, lets pray that the Appellate Court will see the light and let justice prevail.
Facebook – Under the Realm of the Wrongly Convicted Group –
Charles Ajoloko Is Inocent. Please like page.
Email – email@example.com
Twitter – https://twitter.com/justiceforhim2
Instagram – Pamela Ajoloko