United States v. Schenck
2:20-cr-00019
| E.D. La. | Aug 13, 2025Background
- Randy Schenck was indicted for multiple federal crimes, including interstate travel in aid of racketeering, wire fraud, sex trafficking, transportation for prostitution, and aggravated identity theft arising from a scheme involving drugging victims and theft.
- Schenck changed attorneys multiple times but ultimately entered a conditional guilty plea to two counts (interstate travel in aid of racketeering and wire fraud), after a thorough plea colloquy with the court.
- Schenck later moved to withdraw his plea, alleging ineffective assistance, coercion, and misrepresentation by counsel, which were denied by the district court after applying relevant legal standards.
- Schenck appealed but the Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion or constitutional error in the denial of his motion to withdraw plea.
- Schenck then sought post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, advancing multiple grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, which the government opposed.
- The district court denied the § 2255 motion, having found that Schenck’s claims were either unsupported, conclusively refuted by the record, or abandoned.
Issues
| Issue | Schenck's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to Review Factual Basis | Counsel did not adequately review plea factual basis with Schenck and pressured him into plea | Schenck was aware of contents; contemporaneous evidence and sworn colloquy statements refute claim | No prejudice; claim denied |
| Failure to Object to Court Pressure | Counsel failed to object to judicial "pressure" at plea hearing | Court did not pressure or improperly participate; no basis for objection | Objection would have been meritless; claim denied |
| Failure to Relay Plea Offer | Counsel failed to convey or rejected an initial more favorable plea offer without consent | No formal offer existed; Schenck adamantly refused proposed terms; no prejudice shown | No deficient performance or prejudice; claim denied |
| Counsel Deceived/Coerced about Plea | Counsel deceived about effect of factual basis and forged signature; coerced into plea | Sworn colloquy reflects Schenck understood plea/sentencing; no evidence of coercion or forgery | No evidence or prejudice; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178 (Sup. Ct. 1979) (collateral attacks must demonstrate a "fundamental defect" that constitutes a miscarriage of justice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Lee v. United States, 582 U.S. 357 (Sup. Ct. 2017) (prejudice from ineffective assistance in plea context focuses on defendant's decisionmaking)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (Sup. Ct. 1977) (statements at plea colloquy under oath carry strong presumption of verity)
- DeVille v. Whitley, 21 F.3d 654 (5th Cir. 1994) (voluntary plea defeats ineffective assistance if no actual substantial disadvantage)
- United States v. Cervantes, 132 F.3d 1106 (5th Cir. 1998) (post hoc allegations cannot alone overcome sworn plea colloquy statements)