Engstrom v. State

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed David W. Engstrom’s appeal from the denial of his Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 postconviction petition and declared his motions for an extension of time to file a brief moot. The court held that the petition was untimely as to one case and failed to state a viable claim for relief as to the other. The court also concluded that Engstrom had no right to appeal directly from his guilty pleas under the circumstances presented.

Holdings

1. An appeal from an order denying postconviction relief will not be permitted to go forward when it is evident from the record that the appellant cannot prevail.
2. When a defendant enters a guilty plea, a Rule 37.1 petition must be filed within ninety days of the date judgment is entered; Engstrom's petition filed in 2015 was untimely as to the 2012 judgment.
3. In guilty-plea postconviction proceedings, the petitioner must show that the plea was not intelligently and voluntarily entered on the advice of competent counsel, satisfying both deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland.
4. A claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment is not cognizable in a Rule 37.1 proceeding, and a guilty plea waives a claim that the defendant was not guilty of the charges.
5. A defendant generally has no direct appeal from a guilty plea, subject to limited exceptions; absent an applicable exception, counsel has no duty to advise the defendant of a right to appeal from the guilty-plea judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Rule 37.1 petition was timely as to the 2012 guilty-plea judgment.
2. Whether the petition stated a cognizable and sufficient ineffective-assistance claim concerning the 2013 guilty pleas.
3. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Engstrom of a right to appeal from a guilty-plea judgment.
4. Whether the appeal should proceed when the record demonstrated that Engstrom could not prevail.

Disposition

dismissed