STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KYLE RANSOME

Annotate this Case


NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1563-10T4




STATE OF NEW JERSEY,


Plaintiff-Respondent,


v.


KYLE RANSOME,


Defendant-Appellant.


___________________________________

October 28, 2011

 

Submitted October 13, 2011 - Decided

 

Before Judges Fuentes and Harris.

 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County, Indictment No. 99-02-00114.

 

Kyle Ransome, appellant pro se.

 

Sean F.Dalton, GloucesterCounty Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Joseph H. Enos, Jr., Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).


PER CURIAM

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."1 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.2

A copy of the Law Division's order is an indispensable component to our effective review.3 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.4 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.

Appeal dismissed.

1 Ransome was found guilty of, among other things, aggravated manslaughter, by a jury. We affirmed the conviction and sentence. State v. Ransome, No. A-6720-00 (App. Div. June 21, 2004). The Supreme Court denied certification. State v. Ransome, 181 N.J. 549 (2004). Thereafter, Ransome's application for post-conviction relief was denied by the Law Division, and we affirmed. State v. Ransome, No. A-2239-07 (App. Div. May 08, 2009). The Supreme Court denied certification. State v. Ransome, 200 N.J. 208 (2009).

 

2 The amended notice of appeal, dated December 15, 2010, left questions twelve and thirteen both related to transcript requests blank, without explanation.

3 Without the order, we have no way of confirming that the motion was actually filed with, and then considered by, the court. The State's brief, unfortunately does not shed any light on the purported proceedings from which this appeal is taken.

4 We note, without deciding, that Ransome's Point II, arguing he was in the State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458 (2005), pipeline, appears to be without merit. To be within the narrow corridor of Natale retroactivity, Ransome's appeal would have to have been "on direct appeal" on the date of the decision in Natale, August 2, 2005. Id. at 494. It was not. It is not enough to have raised a Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004) claim at some distant point in the past. Because Ransome's direct appeal had been decided on September 27, 2004, ten months prior to the Court's 2005 decision, Ransome's case appears not to fall within the ambit of pipeline retroactivity.



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.