The hearing on convicted murderer Nicholas Roos’ petition seeking post conviction relief has been continued until March 28th, according to court records.
The hearing was originally set for January 24th, but the two Mountain Home lawyers appointed to represent Roos in the proceeding — John Crain and Justin Downum — asked for the continuance so they would have adequate time to examine material they have recently obtained as part of their preparation for the hearing.
Roos was one of three young people — all in their 20’s — charged in the killing of an elderly Midway couple and the burning of their home located on County Road 508 in early November 2015.
Roos entered a guilty plea to charges of capital murder and arson on May 24th of last year and was sentenced to life in prison without parole.
The other two people involved in the murder/arson case — Zach Grayham and Mikayla Mynk — also entered guilty pleas and were given prison time. On August 25th, Grayham was sentenced to 25 years in prison on amended charges of murder in the 2nd degree and aggravated residential burglary. The state dismissed arson and theft of property charges against him. In early August, Mynk was given 20 years in prison, followed by 15 years probation on reduced charges of aggravated residential burglary and theft by receiving.
After he entered the prison system, Roos wasted little time in attempting to back out of his negotiated guilty plea and filed a Rule 37 petition seeking post conviction relief.
Rule 37 Petitions are filed frequently — particularly by inmates in the state prison system. According to a number of legal journal articles, the petitions are generally based on the claim that the convicted person received inadequate legal representation.
Roos makes such a claim in his petition, contending that the two attorneys appointed by the State Public Defender Commission — Teri Chambers and Katherine Streett — did a less than adequate job in defending him. Roos alleges — among other things — that the two attorneys did not investigate his claimed mental health problems. He alleges that he informed his defense team that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia that caused both auditory and visual hallucinations. He also claims that his request to meet with a mental health professional was “denied by counsel” for unknown reasons.
He said his attorneys failed to develop a defense of mental disease and defect, despite the fact that he had what he claims was a “history of mental health problems, delusions, hunger strikes and suicide attempts”.
Roos contends that he pled guilty based largely on the “deficient performance and advice” of Chambers and Streett. He said the flawed advice led him to accept a plea agreement offered by the state, enter the guilty plea, accept the life without parole sentence, and not pursue a trial.
When anyone accepts a plea agreement worked out between lawyers for the defense and prosecution, the sentencing procedure is fairly lengthy. During the sentencing, the judge questions the defendant on a number of items contained in the plea agreement. One question specifically addresses whether the defendant was satisfied with the representation he received and if anyone had threatened him in order to get him to enter a guilty plea.
Roos indicated during his sentencing that he was satisfied with the work his lawyers had done on his behalf, and agreed that he had not been threatened and was entering his guilty plea freely and voluntarily.
The State refutes the claims laid out by Roos in his Rule 37 Petition in an answer filed in mid-September. As to Roos’ basic argument that he did not receive effective assistance from the attorneys then representing him, the State points out that Roos was represented by “two of the finest death penalty qualified attorneys” in Arkansas and that the two attorneys have handled more than 50 capital murder cases.
At one point in the sentencing process for Roos, Circuit Judge Gordon Webb asked Roos directly if he had “engaged in actions with a firearm causing the death of two people — the Rices?” Roos said he had.
Roos was also asked if he had anything to say on his behalf before the court formally passed sentence and Roos answered no.
In his Rule 37 proceeding, Roos has asked that he be provided with certain items of information, including audio/visual recordings of him that might have been taken in the Baxter County Detention Center, with a specific focus on a period from 5 a.m. to 10 a.m. on November 13, just shortly after he was arrested in connection with the Rice murders.
WebReadyTM Powered by WireReady® NSI