State of Arizona v. Homer Ray Roseberry, 353 P.3d 847

In 2000 Homer Ray Roseberry shot and killed Fred Fottler during a scheme to steal a large marijuana shipment; a jury convicted him of first‑degree murder and found the pecuniary‑gain aggravator, returning a death verdict.
The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Roseberry’s conviction and death sentence on direct appeal in 2005.
In 2012 Roseberry filed a post‑conviction relief (PCR) petition arguing appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to timely raise that the trial court’s jury instruction improperly required a causal nexus between mitigation and the crime.
The superior court denied relief as precluded and concluded any prejudice from late briefing was cured by this Court’s independent review of the death sentence.
On review, the Arizona Supreme Court considered whether Roseberry suffered Strickland prejudice from appellate counsel’s delay, and whether the Court’s independent review cured any instructional error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to timely raise that the jury was instructed to consider only mitigation causally connected to the crime	Any appellate delay did not prejudice Roseberry because this Court’s independent review considered all mitigation and affirmed the death sentence	Appellate counsel’s failure was deficient and prejudicial because the jury was unconstitutionally instructed to disregard mitigation lacking causal nexus	Denied relief: counsel’s failure did not prejudice Roseberry; independent appellate review cured the error
Whether the causal‑nexus instruction was unconstitutional	N/A (State conceded error but relied on appellate cure)	The instruction unlawfully limited jurors’ consideration of mitigating evidence lacking causal nexus	The instruction was erroneous, but the Arizona Supreme Court’s independent review considered all mitigation without nexus requirement and found mitigation insufficient to warrant leniency

Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (mitigation admissible even if no causal nexus to offense)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738 (appellate independent review can cure sentencing errors)
Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (sentencer must be allowed to consider relevant mitigating evidence)
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (broad admissibility of mitigating evidence)
State v. Roseberry, 210 Ariz. 360 (direct appeal affirming conviction and death sentence)
State v. Anderson, 210 Ariz. 327 (Arizona recognizes mitigation need not have causal nexus)