Peo v. Rose, 22CA2077

Robert Dean Rose was charged with first degree murder and other crimes related to the 2019 killing of M.W. in La Plata County, Colorado.
Rose accepted a plea bargain, pleading guilty to second degree murder with an open sentence and receiving a 46-year prison term, near the upper limit of the presumptive range.
Rose later filed a Crim. P. 35(c) postconviction motion, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not investigating and presenting mitigating evidence, especially regarding his mental health.
At the postconviction hearing, an expert (Dr. Dicke) testified that Rose suffered from Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) and other mental illnesses due to childhood trauma.
The postconviction court denied relief, finding no prejudice even if counsel’s performance was deficient; it was skeptical of the DID diagnosis and doubted that new evidence would have affected the sentence.

Issue	Rose's Argument	People's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance due to failure to present DID and other mitigating evidence	Counsel failed to present evidence of DID and trauma, which could have lessened the sentence	No prejudice, as much information was already available at sentencing, and the new DID evidence was of questionable credibility and unlikely to affect the sentence	Court found no prejudice, thus no relief granted
Weight of expert’s (Dr. Dicke) testimony	Court had to accept uncontroverted, expert diagnosis of DID	Court as factfinder can weigh credibility and reject even uncontroverted testimony	Court properly found Dr. Dicke credible, but not Rose’s account or DID diagnosis
Consistency of credibility findings on Dr. Dicke and Rose	Finding Dr. Dicke credible as a witness means accepting his diagnosis	Factfinder may accept witness credibility while rejecting underlying information provided by defendant	No inconsistency; court’s skepticism of Rose’s self-reporting was permitted
Alternate finding: Rose responsible even if DID diagnosis accurate	Unrebutted evidence showed Rose lacked full awareness/control due to DID	Rose knowingly exacerbated his condition with alcohol/drugs and willingly went to the victim’s home armed	Evidence did not overcome the court’s view that a different sentence was unwarranted

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficiency and prejudice)
People v. Rodriguez, 914 P.2d 230 (Colo. 1996) (applies Strickland standard to sentencing; prejudice requires showing a reasonable probability of a more lenient sentence)