On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Criminal Part, Essex County, Indictment No. 97-07-03146.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Collester and C.L. Miniman.
Defendant Miguel Ramos appeals from a May 4, 2007, order denying defendant's second application for post-conviction relief (PCR). Because we conclude that the relief sought in this second PCR petition was procedurally barred by Rule 3:22, we affirm.
On June 27, 1997, defendant was indicted and charged with first-degree robbery contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1, third-degree unlawful possession of a handgun contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b) and second-degree possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a). After a four-day trial, the jury found defendant guilty of first-degree robbery and not guilty of the weapons offenses. On November 20, 1998, defendant was sentenced to a twenty-year term of imprisonment with a ten-year period of parole ineligibility. That sentence was to run consecutively to a sentence imposed on an unrelated indictment.*fn1
Defendant appealed his conviction and raised the following issues:
POINT I - THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING A MISTRIAL UPON THE INTRODUCTION OF PREJUDICIAL AND IMPERMISSIBLE EVIDENCE.
POINT II - THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY APPLIED THE GRAVES ACT.
POINT III - THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
POINT IV - THE SENTENCE METED OUT IS GROSSLY EXCESSIVE.
POINT V - THE STATE'S CROSS EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT CONSTITUTED PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WHICH AMOUNTS TO PLAIN ERROR. [RAISED PRO SE.]
POINT VI - THE TRIAL COURT'S INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY ON ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY WAS PREJUDICIAL AND MISLEADING WHICH SERVED TO CONFUSE THE JURY. [RAISED PRO SE.]
POINT VII - THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I PARAGRAPH 10 BY COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO SEEK SANITIZATION OF ...