Cardoza v. Rock
731 F.3d 169
2d Cir.2013Background
- Cardoza led a narcotics organization; large quantities of cocaine were seized and he was arrested along with co-defendants.
- Cardoza was charged with multiple counts of possession and conspiracy and initially represented by Carbone.
- Proffer sessions with ADA Tompkins revealed the government’s sentencing exposure and an alleged cooperation framework; the government explored a cooperation agreement but did not offer a simple non-cooperation plea.
- Cardoza, after changing counsel (Herrmann, then Chan), ultimately faced trial and was convicted; he received an indeterminate 40-years-to-life sentence.
- A 440.10 motion and related collateral proceedings claimed Cardoza was never informed of a non-cooperation plea option under NY law and that Carbone had a conflict of interest; the state courts denied relief.
- The district court granted habeas relief on the plea-options claim but this was reversed in part on appeal; the conflict-of-interest claim was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel's failure to inform Cardoza of all plea options violated Strickland. | Cardoza | State | Reversed in part; district court error on plea-options claim |
| Whether Carbone's alleged coconspiracy created a per se conflict of interest. | Cardoza | State | Affirmed district court; no per se conflict established |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and prejudice)
- Pham v. United States, 317 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2003) (duty to convey plea offers to client)
- Boria v. Keane, 99 F.3d 492 (2d Cir. 1996) (duty to advise on crucial plea decisions)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1980) (conflicts of interest require showing adverse effect unless per se)
- Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1978) (per se conflict when attorney implicated in client’s crimes)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (review of state-court factual determinations under AEDPA)
- Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (U.S. 2006) (reasonableness of state-court factual determinations under AEDPA)
- Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290 (U.S. 2010) (state-court factual findings not unreasonable if reasonable minds disagree)
- Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (U.S. 2007) (AEDPA standard requires deference to state courts)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (U.S. 2003) (evidence weighing in habeas claims and credibility)