Mikel v. State
| Decision Date | 06 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Parties | Buddy Gordon MIKEL, Respondent, v. STATE of Missouri, Appellant. 27561. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellant.
Clyde C. Rogers, Public Defender, Moberly, for respondent.
Before SOMERVILLE, P.J., PRITCHARD, C.J., and TURNAGE, J.
The State appeals an order setting aside the conviction of Buddy Gordon Mikel and allowing him to withdraw his plea of guilty to rape. Mikel (movant) was sentenced to ten years confinement following a plea of guilty.
In his motion under Rule 27.26, movant alleged as grounds for vacating and setting aside his conviction (1) his plea of guilty was not entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily, with fifteen allegations of specific reasons, (2) the court accepted his plea of guilty without first determining whether or not it was voluntary, with four allegations of specific reasons, (3) ineffective assistance of counsel, with seven allegations of specific reasons, (4) failure of the court to observe the requirements of Chapter 552, RSMo 1969, regarding the psychiatric examination of movant, with three allegations of specific reasons, and (5) movant was denied due process because at the time it passed sentence the court had false and inflammatory information in its files concerning the past conduct of movant which induced a greater sentence.
After an evidentiary hearing, the court entered the following order:
'FINDINGS AND ORDER
The State primarily argues the invalidity of the court's order on the basis the court failed to make the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Rule 27.26(i). That Rule provides in part: '(t)he court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues presented . . .'
A remarkable similarity will be noted between the order in this case and that made in Porter v. State, 504 S.W.2d 30 (Mo.1974) and State v. McCullough, 493 S.W.2d 353 (Mo.App.1973). In both Porter and McCullough the court held findings of fact had not been made which would enable the appellate court to carry out its appellate function to determine if the findings, conclusions and judgment of the trial court are clearly erroneous. Rule 27.26(j).
In this case the movant alleged five grounds with numerous specific allegations of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scharnhorst v. State, WD
...to the value of the property. We may not assume a finding of fact by implication as the basis for a Rule 27.26 review. Mikel v. State, 528 S.W.2d 796, 798 (Mo.App.1975). Accordingly, we assume for purpose of this appeal that counsel failed to investigate the question of the value of the sto......
-
Mikel v. State, KCD
...sustained the motion. The State appealed, and this court reversed and remanded because of insufficient findings of fact. Mikel v. State, 528 S.W.2d 796 (Mo.App.1975). On February 3, 1976, the trial court entered new detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, but this time denied appe......
-
Conklin v. Conklin, 97-2081
...by one party and denied by the other, and this determination must be founded on the evidence in the case." ); cf. Mikel v. State, 528 S.W.2d 796, 798 (Mo.Ct.App.1975) (a "finding of fact is ... a statement by the court as to what facts the court finds to be true which in turn leads the cour......
-
Rolfes v. State, 39842
...record before it, Rule 27.26(i) requires that the hearing court make findings of fact to support its conclusions of law. Mikel v. State, 528 S.W.2d 796 (Mo.App.1975). Here, the trial court's recital that defendant's pleas of guilty were "voluntarily, intelligently and understandably made" i......