592 S.W.3d 675
Ark.2020Background
- Roberts, convicted in 2000 of raping and murdering his 12‑year‑old niece, was sentenced to death after a jury rejected his brain‑injury defense.
- He initially waived appeals, but this Court conducted mandatory review and affirmed; numerous later proceedings addressed his competence to waive and to stand trial.
- Post‑trial litigation revealed claims that Roberts suffers schizophrenia and traumatic brain injury (TBI); later experts (post‑trial) diagnosed schizophrenia and mild intellectual disability.
- A 2014 competency hearing produced conflicting expert views; this Court found the trial‑court competency finding clearly erroneous in a prior remand (Roberts VI) and ordered further proceedings.
- Roberts filed an amended Rule 37 petition; a 2017 evidentiary hearing produced extensive mitigation and mental‑health testimony, but the Polk County Circuit Court denied relief; Roberts appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Roberts' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency to stand trial / failure to investigate schizophrenia | Roberts: long‑standing schizophrenia rendered him incompetent in 1999; trial counsel should have investigated and presented it | State: pretrial experts did not diagnose schizophrenia; counsel reasonably pursued TBI theory; prior competency finding stands | Denied — court finds no clear error; counsel not ineffective and Roberts did not prove incompetence at time of trial |
| Change of venue | Counsel ineffective for withdrawing motion and failing to procure affidavits | Decision was trial strategy; moving could have produced a worse venue; no showing of actual prejudice | Denied — venue decision strategic; no prejudice shown |
| Juror bias / nondisclosure | Jurors concealed bias favoring death penalty and influenced by publicity | Claim is procedurally barred in Rule 37; should have been raised at trial under statutory procedure | Denied — procedurally barred |
| Courtroom atmosphere / appellate counsel effectiveness | Prejudicial atmosphere (buttons, threats, armed attorney) and prosecutor misconduct denied fair trial; appellate counsel should have raised these errors | Allegations are bare; no fundamental unfairness shown; counsel not ineffective | Denied — no clear error |
| Failure to rebut false testimony (earnings, driving record) | Counsel failed to investigate and correct misleading evidence | Errors were minor or could have harmed Roberts’ defenses; no reasonable probability of different outcome | Denied — no prejudice established |
| Failure to present mitigation at penalty phase | Counsel omitted family‑abuse, severe TBI, schizophrenia, family history, recent losses | Counsel’s mitigation investigation was adequate; record lacks Strickland prejudice | Denied |
| Jury’s alleged failure to consider mitigation (jury forms) | Jury forms show jury did not consider certain mitigating circumstances | Issue was decided on direct appeal and is precluded from Rule 37 relitigation | Denied — precluded by prior appeal |
| Atkins / intellectual‑disability claim | Roberts: intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for death | State: full pretrial hearing held; court and this Court previously found death penalty permissible | Denied — issue resolved previously on direct review |
| Categorical Eighth Amendment bar for severe mental illness | Roberts: schizophrenia + TBI should bar execution like Roper/Atkins | No current categorical prohibition for severe mental illness; existing Eighth Amendment law distinguishes insanity and categorical exemptions | Denied — Court declines to extend Roper/Atkins; insanity/competence‑to‑be‑executed claims are separate |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two‑prong ineffective‑assistance standard)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (death penalty barred for intellectually disabled defendants)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (death penalty barred for offenders under 18)
- Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (insane person may not be executed)
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (limits on incompetency standard for execution challenges)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (duty to investigate records in capital cases)
- Cothren v. State, 344 Ark. 697 (Rule 37 relief available for errors rendering judgment void)
- Howard v. State, 367 Ark. 18 (procedural bar on juror‑misconduct claims in Rule 37)