Cervantes v. Commissioner of Correction
231 Conn. App. 278
Conn. App. Ct.2025Background
- Marcelo Cervantes was convicted on a conditional plea of nolo contendere to charges including sexual assault in the first degree and home invasion, after his motion to suppress incriminating statements was denied.
- Cervantes had been offered a plea for thirteen years’ incarceration, contingent on foregoing the suppression hearing, and was clearly informed by the court that rejecting the offer might result in a higher sentence if the suppression motion failed.
- Following the denial of the suppression motion, the State’s plea offer increased to twenty years, and the court ultimately sentenced Cervantes to eighteen years upon his nolo contendere plea.
- Cervantes challenged the denial of his suppression motion on direct appeal (which was affirmed), and then filed a habeas petition raising ineffective assistance of counsel and due process claims; he later withdrew the ineffective assistance claims, leaving only the due process claim.
- The habeas court found no due process violation, as factors beyond the exercise of the suppression right were involved in the sentencing decision, and denied certification to appeal; Cervantes appealed this denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a due process violation from a higher sentence imposed after pursuing a suppression motion? | Cervantes: The court improperly punished him with a longer sentence for exercising his right to seek suppression. | Commissioner: The increased sentence was based on the strengthened case after denial of the motion, not as punishment. | No due process violation; sentence increase was permissible in light of the failed suppression and stronger state case. |
| Did the habeas court abuse discretion in denying certification to appeal? | Cervantes: The denial was an abuse of discretion and warranted further appellate review. | Commissioner: No debatable legal issue or basis for further review; denial was proper. | No abuse of discretion; no issue warranting appellate scrutiny. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Revelo, 256 Conn. 494 (Conn. 2001) (trial court cannot punish a defendant with a harsher sentence solely for exercising a right, such as moving to suppress)
- State v. Angel M., 337 Conn. 655 (Conn. 2020) (distinguishes between punishing a defendant for exercising rights and denying leniency for failing to accept a plea)
- Council v. Commissioner of Correction, 114 Conn. App. 99 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009) (describes standard of review in habeas proceedings)
- McClain v. Commissioner of Correction, 188 Conn. App. 70 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019) (sets forth standard for challenging denial of certification to appeal in habeas cases)