Alan Peter Zaloum, Petitioner, v. State of Florida, Respondent. (2026)

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.

PRATT, J.

STARGEL and GANNAM, JJ., concur.