STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROSE RAMEY
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4564-04T44564-04T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ROSE RAMEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
Submitted May 24, 2006 - Decided June 19, 2006
Before Judges Stern and Alley.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, 98-02-0264, 98-06-1052, 98-09-1749, and 98-09-1788.
Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Mark S. Carter, Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).
Luis A. Valentin, Monmouth County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Mark P. Stalford, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel, and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
This appeal, which has been taken by defendant Rose Ramey, involves her guilty pleas to four indictments and the sentences imposed thereon. Specifically, pursuant to the pleas of guilty, defendant was sentenced to twenty-two years imprisonment, with an eighteen-year, eight month, two-day period of parole ineligibility pursuant to the No Early Release Act under Indictment 98-09-1749; ten years imprisonment under Indictment 98-02-0264; five years imprisonment under Indictment 98-06-1052; and five years imprisonment under Indictment 98-09-1788. All the sentences were concurrent to each other.
Defendant argues on appeal that her petition for post conviction relief was improperly denied. She argues that she was the victim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant, however, has failed to make a sufficient showing to warrant an evidentiary hearing on the claim. In essence, she has not presented sufficient evidence that trial counsel was deficient, or that but for such deficiency, the result of her case would have been different. R. 2:11-3(e)(2); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987).
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
2
A-4564-04T4
June 19, 2006
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.