The state has now filed its trial brief in the case of convicted murderer Nicholas Roos who is seeking post conviction relief by way of a Rule 37 Petition.With both the state and defense having now filed trial briefs, the case is in the hands Circuit Judge Gordon Webb to accept or reject Roos claims.
On May 24th of last year, Roos pled guilty to killing an elderly Midway Couple in early November 2015 and was sentenced to life in prison without parole.
In Roos Rule 37 Petition, he alleges that the two lawyers initially appointed by the State Public Defender Commission did not do an effective job in defending him, and that he entered his guilty plea to the charges based on the defective advice of his original lawyers.
One of the main contentions is that the two lawyers – Katherine Streett and Teri Chambers – did not seek to have Roos undergo a psychological examination to determine ifa defense based on mental disease or defect could be mounted.
In a hearing on Roos Rule 37 Petition held in Baxter County Circuit Court March 28th, Chambers and Streett testified that after substantial interaction with Roos, they did not feel he was mentally unstable.
If the case had gone to trial, the two lawyers said they would have used Roos claimed mental problems as mitigating factors during the sentencing phase of the trial in an attempt to have him avoid the death penalty.
While Roos claims a variety of mental problems as well as attempted suicides in his past, the state contends that he does not claim that he was having any sort of mental issue on the day he shot and killed Donald and LaDonna Rice and set fire to their home to cover up evidence.
In the states trial brief, 14th Judicial District Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Christopher Carter, writes that while Roos did lay out his history of claimed mental problem, he never attempted to tie those conditions to the murder and arson.
Roos testified during the March 28th hearing that he had problems with alcohol and drugs; particularly after his live-in girlfriend and the child they had together left him.
The state points out that the simple fact Roos was a methamphetamine user did not mean he could have used a defense of mental disease or defect.
In its brief, the state contends that Roos clearly appreciated the criminality of his conduct and that he has offered no proof to the contrary during the Rule 37 procedure.
At one point, Carter writes that Roos seems to confuse anti-social behavior with mental health. Under the Arkansas Criminal Code, mental disease or defect does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial behavior.
WebReadyTM Powered by WireReady® NSI