Roberts v. State, 488 S.W.3d 524

In 2000 Karl D. Roberts was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for killing his twelve‑year‑old niece.
Roberts initially waived direct appeal and postconviction review; this Court previously affirmed those waivers and the conviction in early 2000s decisions.
Years later Roberts filed a Rule 37.5 postconviction petition, then sought to waive further postconviction relief; concern about the age of prior competency evaluations led this Court in 2013 to remand for a current competency determination.
New evaluations diagnosed Roberts with schizophrenia; two experts (Dr. Peacock for the State and Dr. Fujii for Roberts) agreed Roberts has psychotic symptoms, but disagreed on whether he nonetheless retained the capacity to choose between life and death and knowingly waive postconviction rights.
The circuit court found Roberts competent to waive postconviction relief; this Court reviewed the record and concluded the circuit court’s competency finding was clearly erroneous and reversed and remanded for Rule 37.5 proceedings.
The majority also referred to the Committee on Criminal Practice to consider whether Rule 37.5 review should be mandatory in capital cases; three justices dissented (two joined) arguing the circuit court’s written findings were insufficient or the court’s factual finding should be upheld.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether circuit court made sufficient written findings under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5(i)	Roberts: findings were insufficient for meaningful appellate review	State: circuit court’s concise order sufficiently identified evidence and applied the proper standard	Court: findings were sufficient for review (majority)
Whether Roberts is competent to choose between life and death and knowingly waive postconviction relief	Roberts: schizophrenia renders his waiver illness‑driven, not knowing/intelligent	State: Roberts can articulate rational reasons and thus is competent despite schizophrenia	Court: competency finding was clearly erroneous; Roberts lacks capacity; reverse and remand
Whether courts should require mandatory appellate/Rule 37.5 review in capital cases despite a waiver	Roberts: urges extension of mandatory Robbins‑style review to Rule 37.5	State: opposes departing from current procedure	Court: declined to order change but referred the issue to Committee on Criminal Practice for consideration
Whether the "solid footing" doctrine bars acceptance of waiver	Roberts: waiver should be disallowed under solid‑footing doctrine	State: inapplicable if defendant competent	Court: issue moot given reversal of competency finding; not reached

State v. Robbins, 339 Ark. 379 (discussing mandatory appellate review in capital cases)
Roberts v. State, 352 Ark. 489 (affirming earlier waiver and convictions) (previous appellate decision addressing waiver)
Roberts v. State, 354 Ark. 399 (addressing waiver of postconviction rights) (prior appellate review)
Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 57 (426 S.W.3d 372) (remanding for updated competency evaluation)
Franz v. State, 296 Ark. 181 (adopting Arkansas standard for competency to waive life‑or‑death choice)
Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312 (U.S. Supreme Court per curiam decision on competency standards to waive postconviction remedies)
Porter v. State, 332 Ark. 186 (discussing the "solid footing" doctrine)
Echols v. State, 344 Ark. 513 (explaining Rule 37.5(i)’s more exacting duty for written findings)
Wooten v. State, 338 Ark. 691 (explaining purpose of Rule 37.5 and the trial court’s duty to make specific findings)