Smith v. State, 44571
| Decision Date | 15 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 44571,44571 |
| Citation | 663 S.W.2d 248 |
| Parties | Larry Joe SMITH, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John Warshawsky, St. Louis, for movant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Kristie Green, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, George A. Peach, Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for respondent.
Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. Movant pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree and was sentenced to a term of 35 years' imprisonment.
In his amended 27.26 motion, movant alleged that his plea of guilty was not voluntary or intelligent because the court did not explain to movant the elements of second degree murder, because the movant did not admit facts constituting the crime, and because movant was not aware of the permissible range of punishment for second degree murder. At the hearing on his motion, the only evidence movant presented was his own testimony. The state presented the testimony of the privately retained counsel who represented movant at the time of the guilty plea. In addition, the court had before it the transcript of the plea proceedings.
The trial court, in its findings of fact, specifically found that movant's attorney was experienced in handling criminal cases, that he had long and extensive conferences with movant before the plea hearing, that movant's attorney explained to movant both the elements of the charge and the range of punishment. The court further found that movant was in full possession of his faculties at the plea hearing and understood the proceedings. Finally, the court found that movant's evidence at the hearing on the 27.26 motion was not credible. The court concluded:
The believable evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing afforded to Movant, coupled with the record, leads to the conclusion that Movant has completely failed to carry his burden of proof on the issue of voluntariness of the plea, Movant's understanding of the charges and the admission of facts by Movant.
The court then found that movant had been advised of the range of punishment for the offense and concluded that his claim in that regard was without merit.
On appeal, movant contends the trial court did not comply with Fields v. State, 572 S.W.2d 477, 483 (Mo. banc 1978), by failing to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding movant's specific allegations, and requests that we remand for specific findings.
In McCoy v. State, 610 S.W.2d 708, 709 (Mo.App.1981), we were confronted with a challenge to the sufficiency of the trial court's findings of fact. We said:
We have no trouble determining from the findings of the court that each of the factual allegations raised in the motion was not supported by the evidence because the court failed to believe the movant's testimony as to each of those allegations.
* * *
If the findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficiently cover all points so as to permit meaningful appellate review of the court's judgment, then those findings of fact and conclusions of law should be sufficient.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Taylor
...24.02(e). The factual basis does not have to be established from defendant's words alone as long as the basis exists. Smith v. State, 663 S.W.2d 248, 249 (Mo.App.1983). The plea hearing record indicates initially Taylor did not want to kill Ann Harrison and argued for her release. He and Nu......
-
Huffman v. State
...90, 92 (Mo.App.1983); "that Movant has completely failed to carry his burden of proof on the issue of voluntariness", Smith v. State, 663 S.W.2d 248, 249 (Mo.App.1983). In this case, the issues presented were such that recognition of the existence of the powers of the 27.26 court, such as t......
-
State v. Banks
...basis, it is not necessary for a defendant to actually admit or state facts establishing that the offense occurred. Smith v. State, 663 S.W.2d 248, 249 (Mo.App.1983). Instead, it is sufficient if the judge or prosecutor recites the facts and the defendant understands that recitation. See id......
-
Crisel v. State, 55874
...had testimony that was irrelevant, or at best cumulative, or did not support movant's defensive theory". In Smith v. State, 663 S.W.2d 248, 249 (Mo.App., E.D.1983), the motion court's statement that "movant has completely failed to carry his burden of proof on the issue of voluntariness" wa......