Engstrom v. State
2016 Ark. 45
| Ark. | 2016Background
- In 2012 (60CR-12-1134) Engstrom pleaded guilty to failure to register as a sex offender and was placed on 72 months’ probation; probation was revoked in 2015 and he received 36 months’ imprisonment.
- In January 2015 (60CR-13-3242) Engstrom pleaded guilty to multiple child-sex–related offenses and received an aggregate 720-month sentence.
- On April 21, 2015 Engstrom filed a pro se Rule 37.1 postconviction petition referencing both docket numbers; the substantive allegations related only to 60CR-13-3242.
- The trial court denied relief (and found the petition untimely as to 60CR-12-1134); Engstrom appealed and filed motions for extension of time to file his appellant brief.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as one in which the appellant could not prevail and deemed the extension motions moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Rule 37.1 petition for 60CR-12-1134 | Engstrom’s petition referenced the 2012 judgment and sought relief | State: petition was filed well after the 90-day limit for guilty pleas under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c)(i) | Petition as to 60CR-12-1134 was untimely and properly not considered |
| Ineffective assistance (intimidation/coercion) | Counsel intimidated Engstrom into pleading guilty despite lack of physical contact with a victim | State: allegations are conclusory and do not identify specific deficient acts or resulting prejudice under Strickland/Hill | Dismissed: conclusory claims failed to show deficient performance or prejudice; plea was not shown to be involuntary |
| Failure of counsel to communicate (not accepting calls/visits) | Counsel didn’t take calls or visit, impairing defense and plea decision | State: no showing how additional contact would have changed Engstrom’s decision to plead | Dismissed: no specific nexus shown between lack of communication and decision to plead; no reasonable probability he would have gone to trial |
| Failure to advise right to appeal / consecutive sentencing complaint | Counsel failed to inform Engstrom of right to appeal; complained sentences were consecutive and effectively life | State: no general right to appeal after a guilty plea absent exception; Engstrom could have refused plea once informed of consecutive sentencing | Dismissed: no duty to advise about appeal absent exception; challenge to consecutive sentencing is not a Rule 37.1 basis for the plea itself because he could have declined the plea and proceeded to trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applying Strickland prejudice test to guilty-plea challenges)
- Wainwright v. State, 307 Ark. 569 (Ark.; prejudice requirement under ineffective-assistance analysis)
- Mancia v. State, 2015 Ark. 115 (guilty-plea collateral review focuses on voluntariness and competent counsel)
- Sartin v. State, 2012 Ark. 155 (use of Strickland standard on appeal)
- Lemaster v. State, 2015 Ark. 167 (standard for overturning postconviction relief determinations)
- Watson v. State, 2014 Ark. 203 (conclusory allegations insufficient to overcome presumption of effective counsel)