Cruz v. United States

Background

Kevin Cruz, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence on specified legal grounds. He argued that his attorney, George Goltzer, provided ineffective assistance of counsel, meaning representation that fell below constitutional standards and prejudiced the defense.

Cruz pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and Hobbs Act robbery. The plea agreement stated that the sentencing guidelines would account for the death of Jonathan Tuck during the robbery, and it set the stipulated guideline sentence at the statutory maximum of 300 months. The agreement also limited Cruz’s right to appeal or bring a § 2255 motion if his sentence was at or below that stipulated guideline sentence. The court ultimately imposed concurrent sentences of 60 months on one count and 180 months on the other, for a total of 15 years, followed by three years of supervised release on each count.

Cruz raised four ineffective-assistance claims: that Goltzer failed to request a psychological examination; that Goltzer misrepresented the role Tuck’s death would play in sentencing; that Goltzer failed to make a specific request for a lower sentence; and that Goltzer failed to file an appeal after Cruz instructed him to do so.

Claims the Court Denied

The court denied the claim concerning a psychological examination. It relied on Cruz’s answers during the plea hearing, when he said that his medication did not affect his ability to think or remember, that his mind was clear, and that he felt able to proceed. The court also relied on Goltzer’s statement that Cruz appeared able to understand the charges, assist in his defense, and make important decisions. Although reports described Cruz’s mental-health and cognitive difficulties, the court found that they did not raise doubts about his competence. It concluded that Goltzer’s decision not to seek an examination was reasonable and that Cruz had not shown prejudice.

The court also denied Cruz’s claim that he unknowingly and involuntarily pleaded guilty because Goltzer misrepresented the effect of Tuck’s death at sentencing. The plea agreement expressly stated that the sentencing guidelines accounted for the victim’s death. During the plea hearing, the court explained the possible 300-month maximum sentence and warned Cruz that no one could assure him what sentence he would receive. The court further found that Cruz had not alleged that he would have gone to trial rather than plead guilty if he had received different advice. It therefore found no required showing of prejudice.

The court denied the claim that Goltzer failed to seek a lower sentence. It found that Goltzer’s written sentencing submission, the mitigation report, and his statements at sentencing specifically advocated for a sentence below the 300-month guideline figure, including a request for a 10-year sentence.

Appeal-Related Claim and Hearing

Cruz claimed that he asked Goltzer to appeal but that Goltzer refused, stating that the plea agreement barred an appeal. The court explained that when a defendant instructs counsel to appeal, counsel generally must file the notice of appeal even if counsel believes the appeal would be frivolous or an appeal waiver would apply.

The court granted a hearing, called a Campusano hearing, to determine whether Cruz actually instructed Goltzer to file an appeal. The court noted that advice that the plea agreement barred a sentencing appeal from a sentence below the stipulated guideline range would have been correct, but it stated that this did not eliminate the need to determine whether Cruz requested an appeal. The hearing does not decide the ultimate entitlement to relief.

Disposition

The court denied Cruz’s petition in part and granted a Campusano hearing concerning the claim that counsel failed to file an appeal. The Clerk was directed to terminate the listed motions and the motion in the related action, Case Number 22-cv-1456, Doc. 1.