Photo: Nicholas Roos
The U.S. Supreme Court has slammed the door on the efforts of convicted double murderer Nicholas Roos to obtain post conviction relief.
Roos is serving a life without parole prison sentence for shooting and killing an elderly Midway couple in late 2015, robbing them and setting their home ablaze. He is an inmate in the Varner Maximum Security Unit of the state prison system in Gould.
On Monday, the nation’s highest court released orders that included the notice that Roos’ petition for a writ of certiorari had been denied.
The starting point on the road to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case began when Baxter County Circuit Court Judge Gordon Webb denied Roos’ Rule 37 petition in late November 2017.
A Rule 37 petition seeks post conviction relief, which can include a new trial, and the petitions are generally based on the claim defense attorneys did not do a good job representing their client.
Roos then asked the Arkansas State Supreme Court to strike down Judge Webb’s decision, but the state’s highest court affirmed it.
Roos then went to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the high court to find the State Supreme Court erred in affirming Judge Webb’s initial decision.
Roos’ petition was only one of thousands filed with the U.S. Supreme Court annually. According to the Administrative Office for Federal Courts, only about 80-to-100 such petitions are selected to be heard by the high court.
The Rules of the U.S. Supreme Court make clear that having a hearing on a petition for a writ of certiorari is “not a right. It is a matter of judicial discretion sparingly exercised.”
His primary contention throughout the appeal process was that his court-appointed defense lawyers did a poor job of representing him by not doing a more thorough exploration of his claimed mental problems.
Roos said he had told the attorneys of his problems, including suicide attempts, and alleges, even with that information, they failed to develop a defense of mental disease and defect.
In late November 2017, Judge Webb denied the petition saying he did not find sufficient merit in Roos’ argument claiming he had not been well served by his original defense team from the Arkansas Public Defender Commission – Katherine Streett and Teri Chambers.
Judge Webb’s ruling was made based on a review of the case and testimony taken during a four-hour hearing March 28, 2017 in which Roos and the two defense attorneys who represented him through his guilty plea were among those who took the stand.
Roos then took the matter to the Arkansas Supreme Court, asking for a review of Judge Webb’s decision. The state’s highest court affirmed in December last year — a decision Roos wanted the U.S. Supreme Court to review.
Roos launched the effort to obtain post conviction relief shortly after be went to prison in May 2016 to begin serving his life without parole sentence for shooting and killing Donald and LaDonna Rice, both in their 70s, in early November 2015.
Roos and a co-defendant stole items from the home, loaded them into a pickup truck belonging to the dead couple and fled. Prior to leaving, Roos is reported to have set the residence located along County Road 508 ablaze.
The truck was later found burned in a field.
Roos, who was one of three young people — then all in their 20s — charged in the incident, admitted he shot the couple. All three are serving prison sentences. Roos told investigators the killings stemmed from his attempt to raise cash to pay an attorney to represent him in a child custody matter.
Roos pled guilty to charges of capital murder and arson on May 24, 2016 and was sentenced.
During his testimony taken in circuit court during a 2017 hearing on his initial Rule 37 petition, Roos spelled out his various problems, including drug use and suicide attempts. He said that he had used marijuana since about the age of 13, had been drinking since age 9 and using what he described as “party drugs.”
Roos told the court that he was able to control his drug and alcohol use until about three years ago when the woman he was living with and the child they had together left him. He said at that point he began using methamphetamine, opioids and “drinking to get drunk.”
Roos testified he told Streett and Chambers about these problems and believed they should have requested that he be seen by a mental health professional, but that his attorneys didn’t arrange an evaluation.
The two local attorneys appointed to represent Roos for the Rule 37 process – John Crain and Justin Downum – argued that such an evaluation should have been done to determine if there was even a possibility that a mental disease or defect defense might have been mounted.
At one time, and unrelated to the Rice case, Roos was sent to a psychiatric facility in Batesville where he was alleged to have been diagnosed with paranoia, delusions, psychosis and as having no insight into his own behavior. Roos said he left the facility after only four or five days at his request.
Fourteenth Judicial District Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Christopher Carter said the major question to be answered was the state of Roos’ mental health on the day he killed the Rice couple and burned down their home, not on problems he might have had in the past.
Carter contended there had been no evidence presented in the circuit court Rule 37 process to suggest Roos was suffering a mental defect on the day of the crime. He also pointed out voluntary intoxication cannot be used as a defense in Arkansas.
Both Chambers and Streett, who have together handled more than 100 capital murder cases, testified during the 2017 hearing that they did not seek a mental evaluation in order to mount a defense based on mental disease and defect because they did not believe — based on substantial interactions with Roos — there was any basis to do so.
Chambers said that Roos’ claimed mental problems would, however, have been brought out as a mitigating factor during the sentencing phase if the case had gone to trial.
Both Streett and Chambers testified that the evidence against Roos was “overwhelming.” The lawyers said they did advise him that given the case to be put on by the state, a jury could well sentence him to death.
Both Streett and Chambers indicated that Roos initiated the effort to work out a plea agreement, and they went over the agreement in detail prior to Roos pleading to the charges.
During the sentencing procedure on the capital murder and arson charges, Roos was asked if he was satisfied with the work Streett and Chambers had done, and he replied in the affirmative. He was also asked multiple times if he had anything to say and replied no each time.
WebReadyTM Powered by WireReady® NSI