United States v. Chad Konczak
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8448
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Konczak pled guilty to accessing a website to view child pornography; district court imposed 41–51 month advisory range and sentenced him to 45 months.
- Konczak appealed after Jak counsel sought Anders withdrawal, contending all arguments are frivolous; the court limits review to issues identified in the Anders brief and response.
- Counsel contends potential Rule 11 plea-colloquy deficiencies or voluntariness issues; the court notes Knox requires client consultation before raising such arguments.
- The court finds it cannot confirm the plea-colloquy deficiency; however, the record and briefs show the plea was voluntary and the Rule 11 colloquy substantially complied.
- Counsel also argues for a challenge to the sentence, but the court applies a presumption that within-guidelines sentences are reasonable and finds no reason to depart.
- Konczak argues at sentencing that the district court erred by not acknowledging some viewed material was legal; the court clarifies the sole base for sentencing concerns was seized from images of child pornography.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 11 plea challenge viability | Konczak seeks withdrawal via Rule 11 issues | Counsel argues potential Rule 11 flaws but must consult client per Knox | Frivolous; plea colloquy substantially complied; no Rule 11 defect. |
| Within-guidelines sentence reasonableness | No reason to presume reasonableness beyond guidelines | Presumption of reasonableness applies; no basis to depart | Frivolous; guideline sentence presumed reasonable. |
| Consideration of lawful versus unlawful viewing at sentencing | Court should acknowledge non-criminal sites; mitigate penalization | Evidence shows Konczak downloaded child pornography; modeling sites drew to porn | Frivolous; sole basis was illicit images; no punitive error from lawful viewing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requires counsel to file facially adequate Anders brief and seek client consultation)
- United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2002) (consult client before raising Rule 11 withdrawal arguments)
- United States v. Bowlin, 534 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2008) (Rule 11 compliance and voluntariness considerations)
- United States v. Blalock, 321 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2003) (Rule 11 and plea adequacy standards)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (within-guidelines sentences presumed reasonable)
- United States v. Pape, 601 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2010) (within-guidelines sentencing considerations)