Candelario Cruz-Trujillo, Appellant-Petitioner v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Respondent (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Candelario Cruz-Trujillo shot and killed a man with whom his wife was having an affair. A jury found him guilty of murder, and he was sentenced to fifty-six years in the Department of Correction. He appealed his conviction, and we affirmed. Cruz-Trujillo v. State, No. 41A01-1612-CR-2723, 2017 WL 4820465 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2017) (mem.). He then petitioned for post-conviction relief. As relevant here, he raised three claims: (1) his trial counsel were ineffective for not striking or challenging certain jurors; (2) his trial counsel were ineffective for not objecting to parts of the State's closing argument; and (3) his appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging his sentence. The post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing and rejected all three claims.

[2] In this pro se appeal, Cruz-Trujillo renews all three claims. He failed to meaningfully develop the second and third claims below, so cannot show any error in the post-conviction court's rejection of those claims. Regarding the State's closing argument, Cruz-Trujillo alleged in his petition that “trial counsel failed to object to prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecutor argued repeatedly to the jury that Petitioner had confessed to confronting the victim for the purpose of killing him.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 36. However, at no point in the petition, at the evidentiary hearing, or in his proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law did Cruz-Trujillo provide any record citations to support this claim. As to his sentence, Cruz-Trujillo alleged in his petition that his appellate counsel should have sought a reduction under Appellate Rule 7(B). But he never mentioned his sentence at the evidentiary hearing, and his proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law only briefly mentioned his sentence and said nothing about Appellate Rule 7(B) or the performance of his appellate counsel.

[3] That leaves Cruz-Trujillo's claim that his trial counsel were ineffective for not striking or challenging certain jurors—Juror 5, Juror 12, and Juror 16. This claim also fails. Juror 5 had been the victim of theft in the past but answered yes when asked if they could “put aside any opinions” and “listen freely and with open and unbiased ears.” Trial Tr. Vol. I pp. 174-75. Juror 12 had seen TV coverage of the case and thought this coverage could be unfair to Cruz-Trujillo but said they could be “fair and impartial,” could focus on the “actual evidence,” and could follow the law. Id. at 106-13. Juror 16 also saw TV coverage of the case and worked with one of the testifying police officers in high school but said that neither fact would impact their ability to be fair and impartial. Id. at 81-85, 133-34. The evidence doesn't support Cruz-Trujillo's claim that these jurors were biased against him.

[4] Cruz-Trujillo also notes that the post-conviction court, in denying his petition, relied in part on the fact that he didn't submit the record of his trial and direct appeal as an exhibit. Before the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, Cruz-Trujillo moved the court to take judicial notice of the underlying record, explaining that he was unable to obtain a certified copy to submit as an exhibit and that the post-conviction court had declined to do so itself. Appellant's App. Vol. II pp. 43-45. The court granted Cruz-Trujillo's motion and took judicial notice of the record. Id. at 47. Once the court did so, Cruz-Trujillo didn't have to offer the record as an exhibit. See Mitchell v. State, 946 N.E.2d 640, 644-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), reh'g denied, trans. denied. But the court's error on this point was harmless. As discussed above, Cruz-Trujillo's jury-selection claim was the only one he adequately presented in the post-conviction court, and we have independently determined that the record doesn't support it.

[5] For these reasons, we affirm the denial of Cruz-Trujillo's petition for post-conviction relief.

[6] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Chief Judge Altice and Judge Scheele concur. Altice, C.J., and Scheele, J., concur.