Alan Peter Zaloum v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledAugust 28, 2026
Docket6D2026-0140
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
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.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
2