Cruz v. Commissioner of Correction
206 Conn. App. 17
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Joshua Cruz pled guilty to murder on December 18, 2012 under a negotiated sentencing range of 25–42 years; he was sentenced to 38 years after withdrawing a motion to withdraw his plea at sentencing.
- Cruz later filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance by his plea counsel, William Gerace (misadvice about charge/sentence, inadequate investigation and consultation, coercion), and by successor counsel, Dean Popkin, at sentencing (failure to present additional mitigation and to advocate for the sentence minimum).
- After the plea Gerace was accused of telling Cruz the charge had been reduced to manslaughter and of pressuring him to plead; Cruz sought to withdraw the plea and Popkin was appointed and filed a motion to withdraw, which Cruz later withdrew following Popkin’s advice.
- The state’s case was strong: video surveillance, multiple eyewitness identifications, and Cruz’s DNA on the murder weapon; prosecutor testified he would not have reduced the charge to manslaughter.
- The habeas court assumed, without deciding, possible deficient performance by Gerace but rejected prejudice; it also found Popkin advocated at sentencing (offered mitigation and requested 32 years) and rejected both deficiency and prejudice as to Popkin.
- On appeal Cruz argued (1) Gerace’s plea-stage counsel prejudiced him such that he would have gone to trial, and (2) Popkin’s sentencing representation warranted a presumption of prejudice under Cronic/Davis; the appellate court affirmed the habeas judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cruz) | Defendant's Argument (State/Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cruz proved prejudice from plea-stage counsel Gerace's alleged failures | Gerace misadvised/coerced Cruz, misrepresented charge (manslaughter vs. murder) and exposure, so Cruz would have rejected plea and gone to trial but for that conduct | Cruz had alternate counsel (Popkin) who reviewed the file and advised acceptance; the state’s case was strong and no evidence showed a better plea or lesser sentence was available | No prejudice: habeas court’s finding that Cruz would not have rationally insisted on trial was not clearly erroneous; affirmed |
| Whether sentencing counsel Popkin’s performance warranted presumed prejudice (Cronic/Davis) or, alternatively, prejudiced Cruz under Strickland | Popkin failed to develop/offer available mental-health and other mitigation and thus was functionally ineffective at sentencing; Cronic/Davis presumption should apply where counsel failed to meaningfully advocate | Popkin did present mitigation (remorse, upbringing, work history, intoxication) and requested a non‑maximum sentence; his tactics were strategic and not a total breakdown of advocacy | No presumption of prejudice; Strickland applies; Cruz failed to show a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence even if Popkin erred; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for guilty‑plea ineffective‑assistance claims requires showing one would have insisted on going to trial)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (circumstances in which prejudice may be presumed for complete failure to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing)
- Davis v. Commissioner of Correction, 319 Conn. 548 (2015) (Connecticut application of Cronic; presumption where counsel entirely fails to advocate)
- Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 204 Conn. App. 44 (2021) (courts may consider strength of the state’s case when assessing credibility of claim that defendant would have gone to trial)
- Colon v. Commissioner of Correction, 179 Conn. App. 30 (2017) (discussion of Strickland/Hill standards in habeas contexts)
- Hilton v. Commissioner of Correction, 161 Conn. App. 58 (2015) (prejudice requires a reasonable probability of a different outcome at sentencing)
- James v. Commissioner of Correction, 170 Conn. App. 800 (2017) (deference to strategic choices by counsel absent no tactical justification)