Link

Two recent juvenile aggravated murder cases with local ties illustrate how Oregon guidelines on sentencing youths convicted of violent crimes can be challenging and complex .

The Deschutes Adult Parole & Probation confirmed Thursday that Conrad Engweiler, who raped, sodomized and strangled a high school classmate in Beaverton in 1990, has been assigned a parole officer in Deschutes County.

Engweiler’s father, Glenn Engweiler, lives in Sisters.

Conrad Engweiler is scheduled to be released Oct. 16 from the Oregon State Correctional Institution after serving 23 years. He will be supervised for a minimum of 36 months and will have to register as a sex offender in Oregon.

Justin Link, who in 2001 conspired in the death of Redmond resident Barbara Thomas, the mother of one of his friends, will be resentenced next year in Deschutes County after a 2013 Oregon Supreme Court decision.

Both men were juveniles at the time of their convictions and sentencing, and they have contested the sentences they received in courts across the state, winning and losing at various stages of appeal.

Engweiler was 15 when he murdered 16-year-old Erin Reynolds, but he was tried as an adult in Multnomah County Circuit Court. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole in 1991 for aggravated murder. The court imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years.

In the 23 years since then, Engweiler, now 40, has embarked on a legal crusade to clarify the terms of his parole.

“The interplay between changing statutes and changing administrative rules over time means that the legal landscape for an offender … (can be) a very complex puzzle to solve,” said Andy Simrin, a lawyer who has represented Engweiler before the Oregon Supreme Court.

After he was sentenced, Engweiler appealed the decision under a state law that barred trial courts from imposing a mandatory minimum sentence on juvenile offenders younger than 17 who are tried as adults. He was resentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole in 1994. It was up to the Oregon State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision to determine the length of his imprisonment.

Although juvenile aggravated murderers were entitled to the possibility of parole when Engweiler was sentenced in 1991, the parole board lacked rules governing parole decisions for them. In 1999, the parole board developed a set of rules that required it to set a review date for juvenile aggravated murderers who were younger than 17 when they committed the crime.

At Engweiler’s hearing under those rules in 1999, the board set a 40-year prison term and a review date for 2030. Since then, Engweiler challenged the board’s decision in the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court in six procedures.

In 2011, the Oregon Supreme Court determined the board was legally bound to hold a hearing to set an initial release date for Engweiler, or explain why it chooses not to hold one. As a result of that ruling, Engweiler appeared before the board for review, and it determined Sept. 2 that he was eligible for release.

Under the ruling, the parole board could consider only psychological or psychiatric evaluations to determine whether Engweiler posed a threat to community safety.

“Five psychologists examined him in the context of his exit interview — three of them handpicked by the parole board itself,” said Simrin. “Every one of them said he is ready for parole (and that) he is not a danger to the community.”

Engweiler has spent his time in prison learning about parole sentencing in Oregon, Simrin said. “There are some areas of the law that (Engweiler) knows better than any lawyer,” said Simrin. “Sometimes I’ll consult with him to get his input on legal issues.”

Glenn Engweiler would not disclose his son’s plans for relocation after release.

When asked how it felt to know his son would be free, Engweiler replied: “As you’ve looked at everything that’s happened and all the Supreme Court rulings, you probably have your answer.”

Justin Link’s case also reflects the challenges of sentencing guidelines for juvenile aggravated murder cases in Oregon.

Link, who was 17 at the time of his crime, will be resentenced in Deschutes County Circuit Court in April after an Oregon Supreme Court ruling in December 2013.

Link, 31, is contesting his original sentence of life imprisonment without parole under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

However, the Eighth Amendment does not forbid sentences for juveniles that include the possibility of parole, according to the ruling.

Link waived his right for a jury to decide whether he had a chance at parole in the original trial, according to Mike Dugan, Deschutes County district attorney from 1987 to 2010. Deschutes County Circuit Judge Alta Brady sentenced Link to life in prison without parole after he waived that right.

In an interview last month, Dugan said he does not believe that Link will achieve a measurable change in his sentence. Dugan described Link as the “ringleader” of the 2001 crime and said he was unlikely to receive a more lenient sentence than his chief co-conspirators, both serving life terms for their roles.

While Link’s fate is somewhat undecided, Engweiler’s release is definite.

Simrin declined to disclose Engweiler’s plans for relocation. “I think he should be left best to get on with his life,” said Simrin.

When an inmate is eligible for parole, the Department of Corrections prepares a release plan. Before an offender can move to a specific county, the county reviews whether it has the resources to make the transition a success, said Tanner Wark, the parole and probation administrator for Deschutes County.

In Deschutes County, the Community Justice Office makes those calls. The office includes the county parole and probation department and the Sheriff’s Office.

“Does this person have the means to comply with supervision and a support system?” said Wark of the review process. “If that person, generally speaking, didn’t have any resources (in the county), then that county wouldn’t necessarily be required to take them.”

The parole board is supplemented by committees that administer postprison services locally. Depending on the offense, the released person will be monitored and have access to treatment and therapy.

Certain crimes, such as sex offenses, require community notification. Parole supervisors visit released offenders if necessary. If a parolee is arrested , local authorities consult with the state parole board about what to do next , said Wark.

Deschutes County works with private providers to arrange for therapy for offenders, said Wark. However, rehabilitation itself should be an exercise in self-sufficiency, he said.

“The probation office would make the best effort to have the person be employed and pay for those services themselves,” said Wark. “That’s the goal.”

— Reporter: 541-383-0376, cwithycombe@bendbulletin.com