Jolly v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jolly v. State

800 S.W.2d 159, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1773, 1990 WL 198180

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 11, 1990

DocketNo. 57804

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 800 S.W.2d 159 (Jolly v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jolly v. State, 800 S.W.2d 159, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1773, 1990 WL 198180 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Movant complains the trial court failed to issue its own findings of fact and conclusions of law but merely signed the State’s proposed findings. We disagree. The record shows the evidentiary hearing was held on March 23, 1989. On November 27, 1989, the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of the court were filed and signed by the circuit court judge. The record does not show such findings and conclusions were proposed by the State. Allegations asserted in mov-ant’s appellate brief which are unsupported by the record cannot form the basis of error on appeal. State v. Wolford, 754 S.W.2d 875, 880 [8, 9] (Mo.App.1988).

Assuming the proposed findings and conclusions were submitted by the State, such was not error per se. Stelling v. Stelling, 769 S.W.2d 450, 452 [1] (Mo.App.1989). See also Malone v. State, 747 S.W.2d 695, 699 [3, 4] (Mo.App.1988). Mov-ant has failed to show wherein and why the findings of fact and conclusions of law were not those of the circuit judge. Point denied.

Judgment affirmed.

GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and CRANDALL, C.J., concur.

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

CRIST, Judge.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Movant complains the trial court failed to issue its own findings of fact and conclusions of law but merely signed the State’s proposed findings. We disagree. The record shows the evidentiary hearing was held on March 23, 1989. On November 27, 1989, the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of the court were filed and signed by the circuit court judge. The record does not show such findings and conclusions were proposed by the State. Allegations asserted in mov-ant’s appellate brief which are unsupported by the record cannot form the basis of error on appeal. State v. Wolford, 754 S.W.2d 875, 880 [8, 9] (Mo.App.1988).

Assuming the proposed findings and conclusions were submitted by the State, such was not error per se. Stelling v. Stelling, 769 S.W.2d 450, 452 [1] (Mo.App.1989). See also Malone v. State, 747 S.W.2d 695, 699 [3, 4] (Mo.App.1988). Mov-ant has failed to show wherein and why the findings of fact and conclusions of law were not those of the circuit judge. Point denied.

Judgment affirmed.

GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and CRANDALL, C.J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

800 S.W.2d 159, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1773, 1990 WL 198180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jolly-v-state-moctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack