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. Ramos

June 26, 2008

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
MIGUEL RAMOS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Criminal Part, Essex County, Indictment No. 97-07-03146.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued: April 21, 2008

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 ...


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.