Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

State v. Romo

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


November 15, 2007

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
MOISES ROMO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, 00-07-0763-I.

Per curiam.

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted November 7, 2007

Before Judges Coburn and Chambers.

Defendant, Moises Romo, appeals from a May 22, 2006, order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

A jury found defendant guilty of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(5), and related offenses.

The aggregate sentence was imprisonment for fourteen years subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. He appealed, we affirmed in an unreported opinion, and the Supreme Court denied certification. State v. Moises Romo, 182 N.J. 680 (2005). The rapes occurred in a park. The police were drawn to the scene by the victim's screams, and they immediately arrested defendant and his co-defendant.

On appeal, we held that the judge correctly admitted defendant's confession, that the judge's charge was fair, that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, and that the sentence was neither unjust, inappropriate or manifestly excessive.

In his petition for post-conviction relief, defendant offers the following arguments:

POINT I

DEFENDANT WAS NOT PROCEDURALLY BARRED UNDER RULE 3:22-4 FROM RAISING THE ISSUE OF HIS MENTAL CAPACITY.

POINT II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT A HEARING BECAUSE A PRIMA FACIE CASE EXISTED THAT DEFENDANT WOULD ULTIMATELY SUCCEED ON THE MERITS THAT HIS TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE.

After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2), and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Barisonek in his oral opinion of May 23, 2006.

Affirmed.

20071115

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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