Karl D. Roberts, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee — Brill, J., Dissenting

Summary

This dissent would reverse and remand because the circuit court did not make the specific written findings of fact and conclusions of law required in a death-penalty postconviction proceeding concerning Roberts's competency to waive relief. It reasons that conclusory findings prevented meaningful appellate review and that the majority improperly resolved conflicting competency evidence itself, rather than remanding for the circuit court to perform its fact-finding function. Justice Goodson, dissenting separately, would affirm because she was not left with a definite and firm conviction that the circuit court's competency findings were clearly erroneous.