State v. Engstrom, 021417 NECA, A-15-1180
|Docket Nº:||A-15-1180, A-15-1221|
|Opinion Judge:||Bishop, Judge.|
|Party Name:||State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Michael D. Engstrom, appellant.|
|Attorney:||Michael D. Engstrom, pro se. Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Austin N. Relph for appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Riedmann and Bishop, Judges, and McCormack, Retired Justice.|
|Case Date:||February 14, 2017|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Nebraska|
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
Appeal in No. A-15-1180 from the District Court for Johnson County: Daniel E. Bryan, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Appeal in No. A-15-1221 from the District Court for Pawnee County: Daniel E. Bryan, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Michael D. Engstrom, pro se.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Austin N. Relph for appellee.
Riedmann and Bishop, Judges, and McCormack, Retired Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
Michael D. Engstrom filed motions for postconviction relief which were denied without evidentiary hearings on the basis that they were not timely filed. Engstrom argues on appeal that the time limitations should have been tolled because of his mental disability and medications, and due to limitations created by the prison riot in the Tecumseh State Correctional Institution (Tecumseh) in 2015. We affirm.
In two separate but related cases (one filed in the district court for Johnson County and one filed in the district court for Pawnee County), Engstrom pled no contest to multiple felonies. Engstrom filed timely direct appeals after his convictions and sentencings. The mandate from his appeal in the case out of the district court for Johnson County was issued on October 1, 2014; the mandate from his appeal in the case out of the district court for Pawnee County was issued on October 21. Engstrom filed a motion for postconviction relief in the district court for Johnson County on November 23, 2015, and in the district court for Pawnee County on November 24.
In both of his motions, Engstrom requested that his filing be accepted "outside the standard time limit based on the mental disability and heavy medication that [Engstrom] has been on, since his arrest." The body of Engstrom's motions contain the same two main arguments: (1) "[Engstrom's] Fourteenth Amendment of due process was violated by the Court when it allowed him to take a plea, and then sentenced him while he was mentally incompetent and heavily drugged, " and (2) "[Engstrom's] Sixth Amendment was violated by his Counsel not pursuing his Fourteenth Amendment violation of Mental incompetence, both during his trial and on Appeal."
Engstrom's motions described the drugs used to treat his brain injury suffered in March 2011, and suggests that "[a]t the time of the robbery of Casey's in Pawnee County, and the police chase that ended in Johnson County, " in 2013, Engstrom "was going on two weeks of not sleeping, from being self[-]medicated on illegal . . . marijuana and methamphetamines." He claims that this factor along with his severe brain injury resulted in him not understanding or controlling his actions at that time. He also claims that through his pleas, he was heavily medicated, leaving him with...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP