Cardoza v. Rock, No. 12-700 (2d Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseRespondents appealed the district court's grant of habeas relief to petitioner, convicted of drug conspiracy and possession charges, because petitioner's attorneys had failed to discuss with him a critical plea option that likely would have resulted in a sentence significantly lower than that actually imposed. The court concluded that the state court's determination that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation that his first attorney was a coconspirator was not, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2), based on an "unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented," and therefore affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's conflict of interest claim. The court also concluded that in granting the habeas petition on the ground that petitioner was not made aware of a particular plea option, the magistrate judge and district court misread the state court's decision denying that claim. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's decision because the state court's finding that petitioner was made aware of another, more favorable, plea option was not an unreasonable determination of the facts.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.