The state has filed an answer to the Rule 37 Petition in which convicted killer Nicholas Ian Roos seeks post conviction relief.
Roos was sentenced to life in prison without parole on May 24th after pleading guilty to killing an elderly Midway couple, Donald and LaDonna Rice, in early November last year, robbing and burning their home.
In its answer, the state refutes the claims on which Roos bases his request for post conviction relief.
Roos claims, for example, that the attorneys appointed by the State Public Defender Commission failed to develop a defense based on mental disease and defect, despite the fact, he contends, they were aware of his history of mental health problems, delusions, hunger strikes and suicide attempts.
Roos alleges he told his attorneys he suffered from severe paranoid-schizophrenia that caused both auditory and visual hallucinations.
In the answer to Roos petition, the state argues Roos does not give information regarding who made such a diagnosis or when it was made. In the states answer, 14th Judicial District Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Chris Carter notes post conviction remedies under Rule 37 require more than bare allegations, and must be supported by facts.
The state also points out Roos does not contend in his petition he was suffering from delusions or other manifestations of his alleged mental problems on the day the crimes were committed.
At one point in the states answer, it is noted Roos diagnosis of severe paranoid-schizophrenia is apparently a self diagnosis, and in his arguments, Roos seems to confuse anti-social behavior with mental health.
In the states answer, it is also contended Roos lays out no evidence that he would meet Arkansas definition of mental disease or defect since he has none.
The state also notes Roos did not allege or even hint in his petition that he did not shoot Mr. and Mrs. Rice, and the evidence against him was overwhelming – including confessions, a co-defendant willing to testify and possession of stolen items from the Rice home.
The state refutes that Roos received ineffective counsel from the two attorneys appointed to represent him. At one point, the two attorneys from the Public Defender Commissioner are described as two of the finest death penalty-qualified attorneys in the state who have handled more than 50 capital murder cases.
Roos’ claim he based his decision to plead guilty in the Rice case largely on the deficient performance and advice of his lawyers is also addressed in the states answer. The state contends in order to justify what it terms his self-serving statement, it would have to be accompanied by a claim of innocence or the articulation of a plausible defense that could have been raised at trial which Roos failed to do in his filings.
A hearing on Roos Rule 37 Petition is now set for late October. Early this month, Circuit Judge Gordon Webb appointed Mountain Home attorneys John Crain and Justin Downum to represent Roos in the Rule 37 hearing.
WebReadyTM Powered by WireReady® NSI