Barton v. State

Supreme Court of Missouri

Barton v. State

76 S.W.3d 280, 2002 Mo. LEXIS 67, 2002 WL 1277155

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedJune 11, 2002

DocketNo. SC 83615

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 76 S.W.3d 280 (Barton v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barton v. State, 76 S.W.3d 280, 2002 Mo. LEXIS 67, 2002 WL 1277155 (Mo. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Findings of fact and conclusions of law made by a court upon motion for post-conviction relief must be specific enough to permit meaningful appellate review. State v. Parker, 886 S.W.2d 908, 932 (Mo. banc 1994). The findings and conclusions in this case relating to disclosure of the dismissal of a pending criminal charge in exchange for testimony by a witness for the state are not specific enough. As the findings and conclusions on this issue may cause other findings and conclusions to be changed, the judgment in this case is reversed. The cause is remanded for entry of new findings and conclusions as to all issues raised, including the issues raised in the “motion for new trial, reconsideration of order denying relief or to reopen for additional hearing.” For this purpose the [281]*281court may hold such hearings and receive such evidence as is necessary.

Any order of this Court authorizing the appointment of the Honorable Theodore B. Scott as a senior judge with respect to this case is vacated.

All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Findings of fact and conclusions of law made by a court upon motion for post-conviction relief must be specific enough to permit meaningful appellate review. State v. Parker, 886 S.W.2d 908, 932 (Mo. banc 1994). The findings and conclusions in this case relating to disclosure of the dismissal of a pending criminal charge in exchange for testimony by a witness for the state are not specific enough. As the findings and conclusions on this issue may cause other findings and conclusions to be changed, the judgment in this case is reversed. The cause is remanded for entry of new findings and conclusions as to all issues raised, including the issues raised in the “motion for new trial, reconsideration of order denying relief or to reopen for additional hearing.” For this purpose the [281]*281court may hold such hearings and receive such evidence as is necessary.

Any order of this Court authorizing the appointment of the Honorable Theodore B. Scott as a senior judge with respect to this case is vacated.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.W.3d 280, 2002 Mo. LEXIS 67, 2002 WL 1277155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barton-v-state-mo-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack