Cruz v. Commissioner of Correction
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** ANTHONY CRUZ v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 28003) Flynn, C. J., and McLachlan and Lavine, Js. Submitted on briefs November 15 officially released December 25, 2007 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Hon. William L. Hadden, Jr., judge trial referee.) James M. Fox, special public defender, filed a brief for the appellant (petitioner). Adam E. Mattei, special deputy assistant state s attorney, and Jonathan C. Benedict, state s attorney, and Gerard P. Eisenman, senior assistant state s attorney, filed a brief for the appellee (respondent). Opinion PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Anthony Cruz, appeals following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claimed that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, that he was innocent of one of the crimes to which he pleaded guilty and of which he was convicted1 and that his plea was involuntary. As to these claims, the court concluded that the petitioner failed to satisfy his burden under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), in that he did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that counsel s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. As to his actual innocence claim, the court concluded that the petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact finder would find the petitioner guilty of the crime[s] to which he pleaded guilty. See Miller v. Commissioner of Correction, 242 Conn. 745, 747, 700 A.2d 1108 (1997). Moreover, the court concluded that the petitioner s pleas of guilty were knowing, intelligent and voluntary. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S. Ct. 366, 88 L. Ed. 2d 203 (1985); see also State v. Commins, 276 Conn. 503, 514 15, 886 A.2d 824 (2005). After a careful review of the record and briefs, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner certification to appeal because he has not demonstrated that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a different manner]; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 616, 646 A.2d 126 (1994). The appeal is dismissed. 1 The petitioner claimed innocence as to only the first count, in which he was charged with risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1997) ยง 53-21 (1) and to which he subsequently pleaded guilty under the Alford doctrine. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970).
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.
