Lindner v. State, 38129
| Decision Date | 17 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 38129,38129 |
| Citation | 552 S.W.2d 70 |
| Parties | George Frank LINDNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Carr L. Woods, Asst. Public Defender, Bowling Green, for plaintiff-appellant.
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Paul Robert Otto, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Jess Mueller, Pros. Atty., Troy, for defendant-respondent.
Appellant George Lindner appeals from the denial, without evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 27.26 motion to vacate sentences imposed upon guilty pleas to 3 counts of robbery in the first degree. Appellant's Rule 27.26 motion asserted three grounds for postconviction relief: (1) three charges of armed robbery were brought against appellant when only one armed robbery occurred; (2) appellant was "led to believe he was to receive a twelve year sentence on a plea of guilty under the terms of Plea Negotiation"; and (3) appellant had no attorney until preliminary hearing. On appeal, appellant contends he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing upon his motion because his motion raised issues of fact requiring hearing and because the trial court failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues raised by his motion. 1
We do not reach the issue whether appellant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing upon the grounds asserted in his Rule 27.26 motion because the trial court did not make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on each of the allegations raised by the motion as required by Rule 27.26(i). The trial court's summary order denying appellant an evidentiary hearing and postconviction relief stated "the Court finds that the record of the transcript of proceedings on guilty pleas is determinative of all the issues raised by Petitioner's Motion and that the Petitioner therefore is not entitled to an Evidentiary Hearing."
Specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on each issue presented are required and will not be supplied by implication from the trial court's ruling. A mere recital that the record shows movant is entitled to no relief is not sufficient. Harris v. State, 547 S.W.2d 519, 521(3) (Mo.App. 1977).
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with Rule 27.26(i).
1 We note initially that appellant filed a brief prepared by "inmate counselor" in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lindner v. Wyrick
...Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for the entry of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. Lindner v. State, 552 S.W.2d 70 (Mo.Ct.App.1977). On remand, the trial court set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law but denied the Rule 27.26 motion. Lindner then ap......
-
Lindner v. State, 47536
...this court reversed and remanded the case, instructing the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. Lindner v. State, 552 S.W.2d 70 (Mo.App.1977). On remand, the trial court reviewed the transcript and found that the defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary Defendan......
-
Lindner v. State, 39675
...in the trial court's denial of defendant's motion without an evidentiary hearing. Judgment affirmed. All judges concur. 1 Lindner v. State, 552 S.W.2d 70 (Mo.App.1977).2 See numerous cases annotated in Note 341 of Rule 27.26, ...
-
Pruitt v. State, 16144
...court's findings if this issue was even considered. Since this specific fact finding cannot be supplied by implication, Lindner v. State, 552 S.W.2d 70, 71 (Mo.App.1977), we have no choice but to reverse and remand to the trial court for further consideration and entry of more complete find......