State of New Jersey v. Jose G. Ramos
This text of State of New Jersey v. Jose G. Ramos (State of New Jersey v. Jose G. Ramos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2694-23
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOSE G. RAMOS, a/k/a ORLANDO LOMBA,
Defendant-Appellant. _______________________
Submitted May 14, 2025 – Decided July 31, 2025
Before Judges Marczyk and Torregrossa-O'Connor.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 92-08-1533.
Jose Gilberto Ramos, appellant pro se.
Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Colleen Kristan Signorelli, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Defendant appeals from an April 1, 2024 Law Division order denying his
motion to correct an illegal sentence. We affirm.
Defendant raises the following arguments on appeal:
POINT I
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED A NEW PRESENTENCE REPORT BEFORE RESENTENCING IN VIOLATION OF N.J.S.A. 2C:44-6, R. 3:21-2, State v. Towey, 244 N.J. Super. 582 [App. Div. 1990]; State v. Mance, 300 N.J. Super. 37 [App. Div. 1997]; and State v. Randolph, 210 N.J. 330 (2012).
POINT II
THE SENTENCING COURT ERRED BY IMPOSING THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE ON COUNT TEN, AND FOR NOT PROVIDING A BASIS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF COUNT TEN CONSECUTIVE TO COUNT ONE IN VIOLATION OF N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5.
POINT III
THE SENTENCING COURT ILLEGALLY SENTENCED DEFENDANT TO AN AGGREGATED TERM OF FORTY-YEARS BASED ON A QUALITATIVE WEIGHING OF AGGRAVATING FACTORS THAT DO NOT SUPPORT SUCH SENTENCE IN VIOLATION OF N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a) -1 THROUGH 13, AND 2C:44-1(b)-1 THROUGH 13.
POINT IV
IMPOSITION OF MAXIMUM SENTENCES, CONSECUTIVE TO EACH OTHER, (Counts One and
A-2694-23 2 Ten) IS IN VIOLATION OF PRE-AMENDMENT State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985).
We have carefully considered defendant's arguments in light of the record
and applicable legal principles and conclude they are not cognizable attacks
pertaining to the legality of the sentence under Rule 3:21-10(b)(5), and are
otherwise procedurally barred as expressly adjudicated, see R. 3:22-5, or
discoverable but not properly raised in prior proceedings, see R. 3:22-4.
Defendant extensively challenged the legality of his sentence throughout
the span of numerous direct appeals,1 post-conviction relief (PCR) petitions and
motions for change of sentence and appeals of those decisions,2 and his
unsuccessful pursuit of a writ of habeas corpus.3
Defendant's post-conviction sentencing challenges began on direct appeal.
We affirmed his conviction, but remanded for resentencing concluding in
relevant part that the court "failed to consider all of the Yarbough factors" or
1 See State v. Ramos, No. A-5598-95 (App. Div. Mar. 19, 1998) (Ramos I); State v. Ramos, No. A-3095-99 (App. Div. Jan. 18, 2001) (Ramos II). 2 See State v. Ramos, No. A-4731-01 (App. Div. Apr. 8, 2003); State v. Ramos, No. A-2837-05 (App. Div. Feb. 20, 2007); State v. Ramos, No. A-4397-10 (App. Div. May 2, 2012); State v. Ramos, No. A-5740-13 (App. Div. June 1, 2015); State v. Ramos, No. A-4296-17 (App. Div. Jan. 9, 2019). 3 See Ramos v. Ricci, No. 07-2719 (D.N.J. Oct. 17, 2008). A-2694-23 3 "articulate the reasons for imposing the maximum parole ineligibility periods,
as well as the consideration of an inappropriate aggravating factor." Ramos I,
slip op. at 24. We instructed the trial court, "in making the determination
whether terms should be concurrent or consecutive, 'the focus of the court should
be on the fairness of the overall sentence.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Sutton, 132
N.J. 471, 485 (1993)).
In 1999, the trial court resentenced defendant consecutively on the
convictions for attempted murder and murder, but imposed all other terms for
the remaining offenses to run concurrently for an aggregate term of life
imprisonment, plus twenty years, with forty years' parole ineligibility. We
affirmed the sentence on January 18, 2001, concluding the "sentence [imposed]
[wa]s not manifestly excessive or unduly punitive and d[id] not constitute an
abuse of discretion." Ramos II, slip op. at 1.
After unsuccessfully appealing the denial of three PCR petitions between
2001 and 2012, defendant then filed a series of motions for reconsideration of
his sentence, which were denied by the trial court and this court. Thereafter,
defendant filed a "Motion to Reconsider Judge's [October 5, 2023] Order
Denying Motion as Within Time (to Correct an Illegal Sentence)," pursuant to
Rule 3:21-10(b). On April 1, 2024, the motion court denied the motion in a one-
A-2694-23 4 page order, addressing his motion as "[d]efendant's [m]otion to [c]orrect an
[i]llegal [s]entence," denying the motion "for the reasons set forth in
[its] . . . decision . . . addressing the same issue, dated July 27, 2017." It is from
this order that defendant appeals.
Defendant challenges his 1999 sentence imposed after remand, claiming
the trial court: (1) failed to obtain an updated presentence report, (2) imposed a
maximum sentence on counts consecutive to each other, and (3) erroneously
applied aggravating factor nine. Defendant has not properly asserted an illegal
sentence argument.
Rule 3:21-10(b)(5) provides that "[a] motion may be filed and an order
may be entered at any time . . . correcting a sentence not authorized by law
including the Code of Criminal Justice." Claims asserting the illegality of a
sentence are reviewed de novo, see State v. Nance, 228 N.J. 378, 393 (2017), as
are questions of law regarding whether claims are procedurally barred, see State
v. Robinson, 217 N.J. 594, 603-04 (2014). Our Supreme Court has recognized
"two categories of illegal sentences: those that exceed the penalties authorized
for a particular offense, and those that are not authorized by law." State v.
Hyland, 238 N.J. 135, 145 (2019). These categories "have been 'defined
narrowly.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Murray, 162 N.J. 240, 246 (2000)).
A-2694-23 5 It is well-settled that "mere excessiveness of sentence otherwise within
authorized limits, as distinct from illegality by reason of being beyond or not in
accordance with legal authorization, is not an appropriate ground of [PCR] and
can only be raised on direct appeal from the conviction." State v. Clark, 65 N.J.
426, 437 (1974). Likewise, if a sentence falls within the statutory range, "issues
relating to the determination of aggravating and mitigating factors, the balancing
thereof and the conclusions resulting from that balancing generally deal with
claims of 'excessiveness,' as opposed to 'illegality.'" State v. Ervin, 241 N.J.
Super. 458, 472 (App. Div. 1989). Defendant's argument regarding his sentence
reiterates claims of error in its imposition; not illegality.
Moreover, defendant's sentence, falling within the statutorily authorized
ranges for each offense, and the consecutive nature of his sentence, has been
previously reviewed and affirmed. As the motion court found, this court has
already carefully reviewed the consecutive nature of defendant's sentence, and,
consequently, the claims are barred from reconsideration here. See State v.
Njango, 247 N.J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of New Jersey v. Jose G. Ramos, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-new-jersey-v-jose-g-ramos-njsuperctappdiv-2025.