United States v. Charles Senke
986 F.3d 300
3rd Cir.2021Background
- Defendant Charles Senke engaged online with an undercover detective he believed was a minor, requested explicit images, arranged a meeting, and was arrested in a mall parking lot with condoms, lubricant, a laptop, a memory card, and a phone in his car.
- Senke was tried on federal charges for attempted sexual offenses involving a minor, convicted by a jury, and sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum (10 years) plus 10 years supervised release.
- Senke repeatedly complained pro se about appointed trial counsel (Matthew Comerford), alleging breakdowns in communication and inadequate preparation; the district court did not conduct an on-the-record inquiry into those complaints before trial.
- At sentencing the court did not verify on the record that Senke and counsel had read and discussed the presentence report (PSR).
- The district court imposed multiple special conditions of supervised release (notably broad computer/internet bans, monitoring, and search provisions; and restrictions on contact/places with minors) and a $10,000 JVTA special assessment; the government concedes the JVTA assessment was plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Senke) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) District Court failed to inquire into defendant's complaints about counsel | Court should have probed Senke's pro se complaints and substitute counsel request; error was structural or at least requires relief | Gov't: Senke did not clearly request new counsel pretrial; court had no duty to act; post-trial requests sought appellate counsel | Court: Failure to inquire was an abuse of discretion under Diaz, but not structural error; no relief on direct appeal—Senke may raise ineffective-assistance claim under §2255 to show prejudice |
| 2) Failure to verify on record that defendant and counsel discussed the PSR (Rule 32(i)(1)(A)) | District Court erred by not confirming the PSR was discussed; plain error | Gov't: Both filed objections and thus had opportunity to review; sentence was statutory mandatory minimum so no prejudice | Court: Court committed plain error but Senke’s substantial rights were not affected (mandatory minimum imposed), so claim fails |
| 3) Special conditions of supervised release (computer/internet, contact with minors, testing/delegation) | Conditions 11–15 (broad internet/computer ban, monitoring, searches) are contradictory, overbroad and unlawful; some conditions unconstitutionally vague or impermissibly delegate to probation officer | Gov't concedes computer/internet conditions problematic; defends contact-with-minors and testing/polygraph conditions and limited delegation | Court: Vacated Conditions 11–15 (computer/internet) and remanded for tailored findings per Holena; upheld Conditions 6–8 (contact/place restrictions) as not vague or contradictory; upheld testing/polygraph and search delegation (scheduling discretion to probation officer is permissible) |
| 4) $10,000 JVTA special assessment (Ex Post Facto) | JVTA enacted after offense; imposing assessment violates Ex Post Facto Clause | Gov't concedes plain error | Court: Vacated the JVTA special assessment and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Diaz, 951 F.3d 148 (3d Cir. 2020) (district court must adequately inquire when alerted to possible breakdown with appointed counsel)
- United States v. Holena, 906 F.3d 288 (3d Cir. 2018) (internet/computer bans are "draconian"; courts must tailor and make findings when restricting internet use)
- United States v. Welty, 674 F.2d 185 (3d Cir. 1982) (court must probe reasons for defendant’s dissatisfaction with counsel)
- Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (right to counsel of choice is structural error if wrongly denied)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance claims require prejudice showing)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (standards for valid waiver of counsel and self-representation)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review framework)
- Martel v. Clair, 565 U.S. 648 (2012) (standards for substitution of counsel and remand procedure)