October 28, 2011
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
KYLE RANSOME, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County, Indictment No. 99-02-00114.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted October 13, 2011
Before Judges Fuentes and Harris.
This is a stealth second application for post-conviction relief styled by defendant Kyle Ransome as an "Accelerated Notice of Motion to Correct an Unsound Sentence."*fn1 Ransome's pro se amended notice of appeal indicates that the Law Division entered an order in this matter on October 29, 2010, and his appellate brief recites that the motion was denied, however, he has not provided us with a copy of the order of the Law Division or a transcript (if there is one) of the motion proceedings.*fn2
A copy of the Law Division's order is an indispensable component to our effective review.*fn3 See R. 2:6-1(a)(1)(C) (requiring an appellant's appendix to include "the judgment, order or determination appealed from or sought to be reviewed or enforced). Its absence precludes analysis of the myriad of issues presented by Ransome, which are the following:
POINT I: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING APPELLANT ACCELERATED MOTION TO CORRECT AN UNSOUND SENTENCE.
A. THE ORDER DENYING APPELLANT'S POST-TRIAL ACCELERATED MOTION TO CORRECT AN UNSOUND SENTENCE SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE COURT DENIED APPELLANT HIS RIGHT TO A RUE HEARING AND THE ASSIGNMENT OF COUNSEL, AND TO AFFORD POST-TRIAL COUNSEL THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.
POINT II: APPELLANT'S CASE IS IN THE NATALE RETROACTIVITY PIPELINE.
POINT III: APPELLANT'S BLAKELY SENTENCE CHALLENGE IS COGNIZABLE, AS BLAKELY APPLIES TO CASES ON DIRECT APPEAL AND/OR THOSE WHO RAISED BLAKELY CLAIMS AT TRIAL OR ON DIRECT APPEAL.
POINT IV: THE TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEAR SENTENCE IMPOSED UPON APPELLANT VIOLATES HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
POINT V: DEFENDANT WAS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APELLATE COUNSEL.
We decline to address Ransome's claims in the face of his
blatant disregard for our rules of procedure.*fn4 This is all the more disconcerting considering that Ransome's grievances have been twice submitted and considered by both this court and the New Jersey Supreme Court.