Engram v. State
2013 Ark. 424
Ark.2013Background
- Engram was convicted of capital murder and rape and sentenced to death; direct appeal affirmed.
- Years later, Engram sought postconviction relief under Rule 37.5; circuit court dismissed as untimely.
- Engram appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court challenging jurisdiction, timeliness, and waiver issues.
- The Supreme Court held Rule 37.5's deadlines are not absolute jurisdictional bars; due process requires a hearing where good cause exists.
- Court found potential good-cause questions regarding counsel's handling and timing; concluded remand for a hearing on those merits.
- Supreme Court reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Rule 37.5(e) deadline jurisdictional? | Engram argues deadline blocks relief since court never lost jurisdiction. | State contends deadline is jurisdictional to bar belated petitions. | Not a per se jurisdictional bar; requires consideration of good cause and fairness. |
| Whether good cause existed to excuse belated filing | Engram asserts good cause due to counsel's actions and delay in appointment. | State contends no good cause shown to justify delay. | Question of good cause must be heard; not dismissible on timeliness alone. |
| Whether Engram validly waived Rule 37 rights | Engram contends waiver was not properly vetted or validly executed. | State argues waiver was valid and precludes relief. | Waiver validity unresolved; requires hearing on whether waiver was knowingly intelligent. |
| Whether Rule 37.5 protections extend to counsel-advised waivers | Engram should receive Rule 37.5 protections despite counsel-advised waiver. | State argues waiver defeats eligibility for belated relief. | Not foreclosed; need hearing to assess impact of counsel-advised waiver. |
| Whether Engram’s petition is barred as a second/successive petition | Engram asserts there is good-cause and non-barred basis for review. | State contends procedural barriers apply to successive petitions. | Not precluded on law-of-the-case grounds; requires factual hearing on timeliness and good cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Porter v. State, 339 Ark. 15, 2 S.W.3d 73 (1999) (time limitations discussed; context for jurisdictional nature in death cases)
- Jackson v. State, 343 Ark. 613, 37 S.W.3d 595 (2001) (fundamental fairness in capital cases; Rule 37.5 considerations)
- Engram v. State, II, 360 Ark. 140, 200 S.W.3d 367 (2004) (prior ruling on mental retardation and waiver context; reliance narrowed)
- Roberts v. State, 2011 Ark. 502, 385 S.W.3d 792 (2011) (waiver and jurisdiction in Rule 37.5 context; postconviction proceedings)
- Kemp v. State, 2009 Ark. 631 (2009) (one-petition rule; relate to prior recall and relief eligibility)
- Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 57 (2013) (Roberts IV; competency and waiver considerations in postconviction review)
- Robbins v. State, 353 Ark. 556, 114 S.W.3d 217 (2003) (limits on recall of mandate and postconviction relief timing)