State v. Engstrom
A-15-1180, A-15-1221
| Neb. Ct. App. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- Michael D. Engstrom pled no contest to multiple felonies in two separate district courts (Johnson and Pawnee Counties) and filed timely direct appeals; mandates issued October 1 and October 21, 2014.
- Engstrom filed motions for postconviction relief in November 2015 in both cases — beyond the 1-year statutory limitation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(4).
- His motions alleged he was mentally incompetent at the time of plea and sentencing due to a 2011 brain injury, heavy medication, and substance use, and that counsel and the court failed to order a competency evaluation.
- He asked the courts to accept his postconviction motions outside the 1-year period because his mental condition and medications prevented timely filing; he also referenced delays from a 2015 Tecumseh prison riot.
- The district courts found the motions procedurally barred as untimely and that no statutory exception applied; Engstrom appealed, consolidating the two matters.
- On appeal the court limited review to the preserved issue (mental disability/medication tolling) and declined to consider prison-lockdown or access-to-courts arguments not raised below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Engstrom's late postconviction motions should be excused/tolled because of his mental disability and medication | Engstrom: brain injury and heavy medication rendered him incompetent and justify accepting motions filed after § 29-3001(4) deadline (equitable tolling) | State: no statutory exception applies; Engstrom did not diligently pursue rights and no extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing | Court: Denied — mental condition/medication did not justify tolling; motions untimely and procedurally barred |
| Whether prison riot/lockdown created a state-action impediment under § 29-3001(4)(c) | Engstrom: Tecumseh 2015 riot/lockdown prevented him from filing for ~82 days | State: argument not preserved below; no applicable statutory impediment shown | Court: Not considered on appeal (not preserved) |
| Whether additional arguments (limited legal assistance, access to courts) excuse untimely filing | Engstrom: alleged limitations on legal aid and court access impeded filing | State: these issues were not raised in district court and thus are not preserved | Court: Not considered (not preserved) |
| Whether equitable tolling applies generally to § 29-3001(4) and should be applied here | Engstrom: effectively requests equitable tolling due to disability | State: disputes applicability and factual basis for tolling | Court: Did not decide if equitable tolling is available generally, but held facts here do not support tolling (no diligent pursuit, no extraordinary circumstance) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Huggins, 291 Neb. 443 (discusses equitable tolling in postconviction context and applies diligence/extraordinary-circumstance framework)
- State v. Shannon, 293 Neb. 303 (legal standard: when statute-of-limitations start date is question of law if facts undisputed)
- State v. Thorpe, 290 Neb. 149 (preservation rule: appellate court will not consider issues not presented to district court)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (framework for equitable tolling in federal habeas: diligence plus extraordinary circumstance)