Mark Eugene Engle v. State
06-14-00239-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | Jan 26, 2015Background
- On Dec. 7, 2012 Engle was stopped and arrested; police seized a locked safe from his car, broke it open, and recovered ~4.1 grams of methamphetamine.
- A complaint, arrest warrant, and later a sealed search warrant were obtained; Engle contends the search warrant affidavit lacked identification of offense/vehicle and contained misleading or false statements.
- An examining trial (Feb. 4, 2013) produced a finding of no probable cause as to the sexual-assault complaint that was the stated basis for the search; drugs seized under that warrant were later used to charge him.
- In Sept. 2014 Engle’s motion to suppress the drugs (challenging the warrant) was denied; counsel then advised a jury plea, and Engle changed his plea to guilty and received a life sentence. He filed a timely notice of appeal.
- Engle alleges he lacked counsel for a critical 20-day period after sentencing to file a motion for new trial, and that trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to assert collateral estoppel (to prevent reuse of facts from the dismissed sexual-assault proceeding) and (2) failing to investigate and challenge the search-warrant affidavit (Franks claim).
- He asks the Court of Appeals to abate and remand for an out-of-time motion for new trial so the trial court can hear these ineffective-assistance and collateral-estoppel claims and conduct a Franks hearing if warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Engle) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Engle denied counsel during a critical stage (20 days) to file a motion for new trial? | Engle: he lacked counsel for 20 days post-sentencing, a constitutionally critical period to file a new-trial motion. | State: (not in brief) likely that appellate process and counsel appointment complied with rules; any delay not reversible error without prejudice. | Request presented to appellate court; no disposition included in this brief (motion to abate/remand requested). |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to assert collateral estoppel? | Engle: prior judicial finding of no probable cause on sexual-assault complaint barred relitigation of the same factual issue (identity/issue preclusion), so counsel’s failure prejudiced defense. | State: (not in brief) would argue collateral estoppel does not apply because the first proceeding did not necessarily decide the discrete fact required or there was no final adjudication barring use of evidence. | Request presented; no ruling in this brief (appellant asks trial court to consider out-of-time new-trial motion on this ground). |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to investigate/attack the search-warrant affidavit (Franks claim)? | Engle: counsel failed to uncover false/misleading statements or omissions in the affidavit; a Franks hearing would have shown the warrant was invalid and suppressed the drugs. | State: (not in brief) would argue affidavit supported probable cause or any omissions were not material such that magistrate’s finding would be different. | Request presented; no ruling in this brief (appellant seeks remand for Franks analysis). |
| Should the appellate court abate and remand under its rule-suspension authority for an out-of-time motion for new trial? | Engle: under Tex. R. App. P. 2 and authority allowing abatement, the Court should remand for hearing on good-cause ineffective-assistance/new-trial grounds. | State: (not in brief) may oppose absent a showing of good cause or prejudice; may contend rule 31(a) cannot be suspended without proper showing. | Request presented; outcome not included in this filing (appellant asks the Court to exercise discretion to abate/remand). |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1970) (constitutional collateral estoppel/double jeopardy bars relitigation of necessarily decided ultimate facts)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (affidavit containing intentional or reckless false statements or material omissions can require an evidentiary hearing and suppression)
- Cooks v. State, 240 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (the 30-day period to file a motion for new trial is a critical stage implicating right to counsel; prejudice analysis applies)
- Torres v. State, 804 S.W.2d 918 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1990) (discusses abatement/remand to trial court for ineffective-assistance/new-trial proceedings)