On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 92-08-1533.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges A. A. Rodriguez and Fasciale.
Defendant appeals from an April 5, 2011 order denying his third petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). He challenges the jury charge and verdict sheet, and contends that the PCR judge erred by barring his petition. We affirm. In 1996, defendant was convicted for attempted murder, murder, and numerous counts of crimes of violence, weapons offenses, and endangering the welfare of a child.*fn1
The judge imposed an aggregate sentence of life in prison with forty-one and a half years of parole ineligibility. We affirmed the convictions, but remanded for re-sentencing. State v. Ramos, No. A-5598-95 (App. Div. March 19, 1998), certif. denied, 156 N.J. 384 (1998). On remand, the judge re-imposed an aggregate term of life in prison plus twenty years, with forty years of parole ineligibility. By order dated January 18, 2001, an excess sentencing panel of this court affirmed defendant's sentence. State v. Ramos, No. A-3095-99 (App. Div. January 18, 2001).
In 2001, the court denied defendant's first petition for PCR. We affirmed the denial and the Court denied certification.
State v. Ramos, No. A-4731-01 (App. Div. April 8, 2003), certif. denied, 177 N.J. 494 (2003). In 2005, the court denied defendant's second petition for PCR. We affirmed the denial and the Court denied certification. State v. Ramos, No. A-2837-05 (App. Div. February 20, 2007), certif. denied, 190 N.J. 393 (2007). Defendant then unsuccessfully sought a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. Ramos v. Ricci, No. 07-2719 (D.N.J. October 17, 2008), certificate of appealability denied, No. 08- 4641 (3d Cir. January 14, 2010).
In 2010, defendant filed his third petition for PCR. On April 5, 2011, Judge Sheila Venable denied defendant's third petition and stated:
[Defendant's] petition for [PCR] is untimely pursuant to Rule 3:22-12(a)(2). In addition, [defendant] is barred by Rule 3:22-4(b)(2)(B) because the sum of the defendant's arguments rest on deficiencies in the jury charge and the verdict sheet. These arguments were previously raised by the defendant and therefore could have been discovered earlier though the exercise of due diligence.
The [c]court has determined that good cause does not exist.
On appeal, defendant raises the ...