STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MOISES ROMO

(NOTE: The status of this decision is published.)
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0752-06T40752-06T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MOISES ROMO,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________________________________

 

Submitted November 7, 2007 - Decided

Before Judges Coburn and Chambers.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Union County, 00-07-0763-I.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney

for appellant (Michael C. Wroblewski, Designated

Counsel, on the brief).

Theodore J. Romankow, Union County Prosecutor,

attorney for respondent (Sara B. Liebman,

Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief;

Kimberly Donnelly, Law Intern, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

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.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0752-06T4

RECORD IMPOUNDED

November 15, 2007