Convicted murderer Nicholas Ian Roos has filed paperwork asking the Arkansas State Supreme Court to hear his petition for a new trial.

Roos, 27, of Gassville, entered guilty pleas in May of 2016 to charges of capital murder and arson for the November 2015 shooting deaths of Donald and LaDonna Rice. After shooting the couple, Roos and an accomplice stole items from the couple's home, then set the residence on fire.

Shortly after being sent to prison to begin serving his life sentence, Roos filed a Rule 37 petition, asking for a new trial due to alleged ineffective representation from his attorneys.

In the petition, Roos claimed the attorneys ignored signs of his mental defects and failed to file motions to suppress evidence gathered by law enforcement during their investigation into the brutal murders.

Circuit Court Judge Gordon Webb, who took Roos' plea, presided over the hearing regarding the petition. Following the hearing, Webb denied the petition.

Roos then moved on to file the petition with the supreme court. He asked the court to appoint an attorney for him, a request granted by the court.

The attorney filed the highly detailed petition on April 1.

In none of the court filings either by Roos himself or any of the attorneys does he ever claim he was innocent of killing the elderly couple. Rather, he claims he would not have agreed to the plea if his attorneys would have secured a mental evaluation for him and filed motions to suppress certain evidence.

In arguing his mental condition should have been at issue, Roos claims he is a paranoid schizophrenic, that his continued use of methamphetamine and marijuana caused him to have mental issues, that he was subject to significant childhood domestic abuse, that his umbilical cord was wrapped around his neck at birth and he had to be resuscitated, and that his stepfather hit him in the head with a ceramic plate.

Additionally, Roos said he's attempted and failed suicide on multiple occasions using multiple methods. One of those attempts led him to be housed in a mental health facility, where he was reportedly labeled depressed and a suicide risk.

The state, in answering those claims, argued there is no documentation of Roos being diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, rather, Roos just claims the diagnosis with no verification. Such a diagnosis, the state says, would mean a team of health professionals would have been assigned to treat Roos for the lifelong condition.

Additionally, the state argued that mental problems and drug use are not enough to rise to a valid claim of mental disease or defect.

Further, the state argues that even if the majority of Roos' claims, aside from paranoid schizophrenia, his petition does not include any evidence suggesting he was suffering from such conditions at the time he shot the Rice couple dead and set their house on fire.

In answering the petition when it was first filed, the state argued a witness who was with law enforcement officers at the time, identified Roos near the scene of the crime, prompting a pursuit that ended with Roos' arrest. Roos claims there was no justification for the stop, while the state argues Roos was speeding and avoiding police.

For the case to move forward, the supreme court will have to agree to hear the matter. They could decline to do so and let the lower court ruling stand.


Read or Share this story: