ALAN PETER ZALOUM
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A petition for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel must be denied when the petitioner fails to show fundamental error on the record.
[1] Fundamental error, which is rare and requires reversal regardless of timely objection, must permeate or saturate the trial with such basic invalidity as to go to the foun…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Fundamental errors are few and rare. . . . [T]hey are those that permeate or saturate the trial with such basic invalidity as to lead to a reversal regardless of a timely objection, and go to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and [are] equivalent to a denial of due process.”
Court's explanation of the standard for fundamental error, citing Figueroa-Sanabria v. State, 366 So. 3d 1035, 1055 (Fla. 2023)
Zaloum filed a petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in connection with a criminal case (2018-CF-000754). The petition was rev…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jury Instruction Error cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2026-0140 Lower Tribunal No. 2018-CF-000754
ALAN PETER ZALOUM, Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. A Case of Original Jurisdiction.
August 28, 2026
PRATT, J.
Upon review, we deny the petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because no fundamental error has been shown on this record. See, e.g., Figueroa-Sanabria v. State, 366 So. 3d 1035, 1055 (Fla. 2023) (“Fundamental errors are few and rare. . . . [T]hey are those that permeate or saturate the trial with such basic invalidity as to lead to a reversal regardless of a timely objection, and go to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and [are] equivalent to a denial of due process." (second alteration in original) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted)); Olivera v. State, 58 So. 3d 352, 353-54 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) ("Appellant contends that the trial court's use of the standard instruction for sexual battery was fundamental error because the phrase 'penetrated or had union with' gave the jury the option of convicting Appellant of sexual battery via 'union' when the information charged only sexual penetration. Conviction of the uncharged form of sexual battery could not be ruled out by the jury's general verdict of guilty. . . . The record in this case shows that sexual battery by 'union' was never at issue, either in the charging document, proof offered, or argument of counsel. Accordingly, Appellant has failed to establish that the standard jury instruction resulted in a conviction for an uncharged offense constituting fundamental error in this case. Because the challenge to the jury instruction was not preserved for appeal by a contemporaneous objection, it is not properly before this court." (citations omitted)).
PETITION DENIED.
STARGEL and GANNAM, JJ., concur.
Dan Ripley, of Ripley Law, PLLC, Pinellas Park, for Petitioner.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Christopher Manon, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Respondent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Reynaldo Figueroa-Sanabria v. State, 366 So. 3d 1035 (Fla. 2023)
- Olivera v. State, 58 So. 3d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)