Cruz v. Superintendant

Cruz v. Superintendant

Petitioner:	Elio Cruz
Respondent:	Superintendant
Case Number:	1:2013cv02414
Filed:	April 8, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	Ulster
Presiding Judge:	Robert P. Patterson
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
May 11, 2016	Filing 25 OPINION AND ORDER: In short, given the double deference that applies where, as here, a criminal defendant presses a claim of ineffective assistance on federal habeas review, the Court is compelled to deny Cruz's petition in its entirety . In light of the substantial evidence of Cruz's guilt, there is little question that he would have been better off adopting a different strategy than the all-or-nothing one that he pursued at his trial. Further, it goes without saying that Perez-Olivo's conduct at trial and in the aftermath of the trial - when he was disbarred and ultimately convicted of murder himself - leaves him vulnerable to criticism. But, as Justice Berkman noted, "the tragic and remarkable facts of Perez-Olivo's downfall do not themselves overcome the presumption of effectiveness" that applies under Strickland. (State Decision at 7). Nor do they overcome the presumptions that apply on federal habeas review. In the final ana lysis, the state-court record developed at trial and in the post-conviction evidentiary hearing provides no basis to question Justice Berkman's conclusion that Perez-Olivo adopted the ill-advised all-or-nothing strategy not only with Cruz 's informed consent, but indeed also at his direction. Given that, the Court cannot and will not indulge at this stage Cruz's belated expressions of "'buyer's remorse'" or his attempts to engage in "&# 039;Monday morning quarterbacking.'" Mui, 614 F.3d at 57. For the reasons stated above, Cruz's petition is DENIED. Further, as Cruz has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of ap pealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); see also, e.g., Matthews v. United States, 682 F.3d 180, 185 (2d Cir. 2012). But the Court does find that any appeal from this Opinion and Order would be taken in good faith, as the issu es Cruz raises are certainly not frivolous. Accordingly, in forma pauperis status is granted. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/11/2016) (tn)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 11, 2016

Filing 25 OPINION AND ORDER: In short, given the double deference that applies where, as here, a criminal defendant presses a claim of ineffective assistance on federal habeas review, the Court is compelled to deny Cruz's petition in its entirety . In light of the substantial evidence of Cruz's guilt, there is little question that he would have been better off adopting a different strategy than the all-or-nothing one that he pursued at his trial. Further, it goes without saying that Perez-Olivo's conduct at trial and in the aftermath of the trial - when he was disbarred and ultimately convicted of murder himself - leaves him vulnerable to criticism. But, as Justice Berkman noted, "the tragic and remarkable facts of Perez-Olivo's downfall do not themselves overcome the presumption of effectiveness" that applies under Strickland. (State Decision at 7). Nor do they overcome the presumptions that apply on federal habeas review. In the final ana lysis, the state-court record developed at trial and in the post-conviction evidentiary hearing provides no basis to question Justice Berkman's conclusion that Perez-Olivo adopted the ill-advised all-or-nothing strategy not only with Cruz 's informed consent, but indeed also at his direction. Given that, the Court cannot and will not indulge at this stage Cruz's belated expressions of "'buyer's remorse'" or his attempts to engage in "&# 039;Monday morning quarterbacking.'" Mui, 614 F.3d at 57. For the reasons stated above, Cruz's petition is DENIED. Further, as Cruz has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of ap pealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); see also, e.g., Matthews v. United States, 682 F.3d 180, 185 (2d Cir. 2012). But the Court does find that any appeal from this Opinion and Order would be taken in good faith, as the issu es Cruz raises are certainly not frivolous. Accordingly, in forma pauperis status is granted. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/11/2016) (tn)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Cruz v. Superintendant
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Elio Cruz
Represented By:	Katheryne M. Martone
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Superintendant
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?