Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Ribble

October 10, 2007

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
DAVID RIBBLE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, Indictment No. 01-05-0728.

Per curiam.

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted September 26, 2007

Before Judges Wefing and R. B. Coleman.

Defendant David Ribble appeals from an order issued by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, on May 3, 2006, denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR).

We have considered defendant's claims on appeal in light of applicable law, and we affirm.

On December 18 and 19, 2001, defendant was tried before James N. Citta, J.S.C., and a jury. The jury found him guilty of first degree aggravated sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2a, and second degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a. The court sentenced defendant to twenty years in prison for the aggravated sexual assault, with ten years of parole ineligibility. For endangering the welfare of a child, the court sentenced the defendant to ten years in prison, with five years of parole ineligibility. These sentences were to be served concurrently.

The issues raised by defendant's appeal were addressed in an unpublished per curiam opinion, State v. Ribble, No. A-5119-01T4, (App. Div. June 5, 2003), and on September 24, 2003, the Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for certification, State v. Ribble, 177 N.J. 577 (2003).

Thereafter, defendant filed, pro se, a petition seeking PCR, alleging that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel, and claiming that he should be granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. As this was defendant's first petition for PCR, he was assigned counsel, and after hearing oral argument, the trial court denied the petition for PCR. This appeal followed.

On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments.

POINT I: THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE PETITION SINCE DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL.

A. TRIAL COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE REPRESENTED THIS DEFENDANT DUE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

B. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT TO THE COURT'S ACTIONS WITH REGARD TO ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.