On May 25, 2017, a Motion for Post-Conviction was filed by an attorney who did the Motion pro se..
We are still awaiting the judges response to the Motion.
We know that the wheels of justice turns slowly. We just do not want the wheels to come to a complete halt.
The following are two of the arguments in the Post Conviction Relief Motion. There’s more.
Trial Counsel Failed to Impeach Jen***, (the victim) Through Cross—Examination of Deputy Ma ***’s 911 Call Into Evidence.
Mr. Ajoloko’ s primary defense at trial was that he was not the individual who robbed Jen***. Despite that fact, trial counsel failed to use evidence which reflected Ms . Jen***’s inability to identify the perpetrator. Failure to impeach a victim about her ability to identify the defendant as the perpetrator may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See e.g. Rutledge v. State, 786 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
Deputy M*** was the officer who originally responded to the scene and made initial contact with Jen***. Deputy M***s original report indicates that Ms. Jen*** advised him that she would probably not be able to identify the perpetrator. Mr. Ajoloko’ s trial counsel should confirmed that fact on cross— examination of Deputy M***. Instead, trial counsel chose not to ask Deputy M*** a single question on cross-examination.
Additionally, trial counsel should have introduced Ms. Jen***’s 911 call into evidence. That call would have provided further confirmation of Ms. Jen***’s inability to identify the perpetrator.
AJOLOKO WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS .
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED FUNDAMENTAL ERROR BY PROVIDING THE JURY WITH A VERDICT FORM ON COUNT ONE THAT WAS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS .
The trial court committed fundamental error because the verdict form provided to the jury on Count One of the Information did not confirm with the jury instructions. The offenses listed as lesser included offenses on the verdict form were completely different from the lesser included offenses included in the instructions and were actually more serious offenses than the offense for which Mr. Ajoloko was charged.
In Mr. Ajoloko’ s case, the trial court instructed the jury both orally and in writing that the lesser included offenses of Attempted Robbery with a Firearm were Attempted Robbery with a Deadly Weapon, Attempted Robbery with a Weapon, Robbery,  and Petit Theft. (TT4 at 441) (Exhibit A) . In contrast, the verdict form, provided to the jury listed the lesser included offenses as Robbery with a Deadly Weapon, Robbery with a Weapon, Robbery, and Petit Theft .
The result of incorrectly instructing on a necessarily lesser included offense is that the jury is deprived of all the tools it needs to reach a proper verdict in the case before it. Haygood v. State, 109 So.3d 735, 743 (Fla. 2013) . Since the jury was deprived of the opportunity to find Mr. Ajoloko guilty of the lesser included offenses that were both one and two—steps removed from the charged offense, the verdict form provided to the jury was defective and constitutes per se reversible error. See Pra ter, 608 So.2d at 559—560. Accordingly, this Court should reverse Mr. Ajoloko’ s conviction on Count One of the Information.
Trial Counsel Failed to Object to the Erroneous Verdict Form.
We understand that Justice is Blind; however, we would like the opportunity to be heard, so that Justice can be Served