Cruz-Polanco v. United States

Background

Johan Cruz-Polanco pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of mixtures and substances containing a detectable amount of fentanyl. Judge John F. Keenan accepted the guilty plea as knowing and voluntary on January 12, 2022. Judge Loretta A. Preska later sentenced Cruz-Polanco to 72 months’ imprisonment.

Proceeding without a lawyer, Cruz-Polanco filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to seek correction or cancellation of a sentence in limited circumstances. He claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, meaning that his lawyer’s performance was constitutionally inadequate and caused him prejudice.

Legal standard

The court explained that a person seeking relief under § 2255 generally must show a constitutional error, a jurisdictional defect, or a fundamental legal or factual error. For an ineffective-assistance claim, the person must show both that counsel’s performance fell below reasonable professional standards and that the deficiency probably affected the result.

For claims involving a guilty plea, the person must show a reasonable probability that, without counsel’s errors, he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial. For claims involving sentencing, he must show a reasonable probability that he would have received a less severe sentence. The court also stated that a hearing is unnecessary when the motion and case records conclusively show that the person is not entitled to relief, or when the allegations are vague, conclusory, or unsupported by competent evidence.

Claims and analysis

Challenge to the indictment. Cruz-Polanco argued that counsel should have objected to the indictment and that the indictment did not show a genuine agreement between two or more people to commit a crime. The court found that the indictment clearly charged a fentanyl-distribution conspiracy, tracked the applicable statutes, and gave Cruz-Polanco notice of the charge. The court also relied on his guilty plea, during which he confirmed that he understood the elements of the offense and had committed it. It concluded that he had shown neither deficient performance nor prejudice from counsel’s failure to seek dismissal of the indictment.

Failure to file or discuss an appeal. Cruz-Polanco claimed that he orally asked counsel to file an appeal and that counsel failed to do so. The court found that he gave no specific information about when or where he made that request and offered no supporting evidence. Counsel and counsel’s paralegal submitted sworn declarations stating that Cruz-Polanco never asked them to file an appeal, along with written communications that did not mention such a request. The court held that Cruz-Polanco’s vague statement was insufficient to show that he requested an appeal or to require a hearing.

The court also found that Cruz-Polanco had not shown that counsel failed to consult with him about an appeal. It noted that the plea agreement included a waiver of appeals involving any sentence within or below the stipulated guideline range of 87 to 108 months, and that the plea-hearing transcript showed Cruz-Polanco understood the waiver. The court further found that the plea hearing showed compliance with the rule governing guilty pleas, including that Cruz-Polanco understood the charge and plea agreement and that his plea had a factual basis.

Failure to investigate or prepare a defense. Cruz-Polanco asserted that counsel filed no motion, refused to help prepare a defense, and failed to investigate the government’s accusation concerning the alleged conspiracy. The court found that he did not identify what motion counsel should have filed, explain how counsel failed to investigate or prepare the case, or otherwise provide facts showing objectively unreasonable performance. It characterized these claims as conclusory and noted that they conflicted with Cruz-Polanco’s statements during the plea hearing that he had committed the criminal conduct and was satisfied with counsel’s representation.

Alleged conflict of interest and coercion. Cruz-Polanco claimed that counsel had a conflict of interest, acted for the government, and induced him to give up his rights and plead guilty. The court found no support for the alleged conflict or claim that counsel worked for the government. It also found that the plea-hearing record contradicted the claim of inducement because Cruz-Polanco expressly denied being induced to plead guilty.

Disposition

Judge Oetken denied Cruz-Polanco’s § 2255 petition. The court directed the clerk to docket the order in both the criminal and civil cases, close the motion in the criminal case, mark the civil case as closed, and mail a copy of the order to Cruz-Polanco.