Nave v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Nave v. State

737 S.W.2d 526, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 4713

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 6, 1987

DocketNo. 52499

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 737 S.W.2d 526 (Nave 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

Nave v. State, 737 S.W.2d 526, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 4713 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIMM, Judge.

Movant, following an evidentiary hearing, appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion. Because findings of fact and conclusions of law were not made on all issues presented, we are unable to perform our function, i.e., to determine if the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous, Fields v. State, 572 S.W.2d 477 (Mo.1978). Therefore, we reverse and remand with directions to enter specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Movant, convicted of capital murder under § 565.001 (RSMo.1978), was sentenced to death. The sentence was affirmed on appeal, State v. Nave, 694 S.W.2d 729 (Mo. banc 1985).

Movant alleges that the trial court failed to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues with the specificity required under Rule 27.26(i), and Fields v. State, 572 S.W.2d 477 (Mo.1978). We agree; the findings and conclusions did not address several of the allegations presented in the evidentiary hearing. For example, we are unable to determine the trial court’s rulings concerning counsel’s questioning of Richard Beeman. Also, among other issues left unresolved, was the court’s ruling concerning the adequacy of counsel in the presentation of evidence about movant’s prior history of drug and alcohol abuse.

We are not unmindful of the stresses and time pressures imposed on a circuit judge. We realize that the preparation of detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law is time consuming and requires the cooperation of the parties. Here, we must keep in mind that movant was convicted of capital murder and given a death sentence. As a result, all aspects of his trial and post-trial proceedings are subject to, and will receive, strict scrutiny. Thus, we reverse and remand, not for a further evidentiary hearing, but for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues presented. In view of our holding, we do not reach the issue of whether movant was denied his right to effective counsel.

SIMON, P.J., and CRANDALL, J., concur.

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

GRIMM, Judge.

Movant, following an evidentiary hearing, appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion. Because findings of fact and conclusions of law were not made on all issues presented, we are unable to perform our function, i.e., to determine if the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous, Fields v. State, 572 S.W.2d 477 (Mo.1978). Therefore, we reverse and remand with directions to enter specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Movant, convicted of capital murder under § 565.001 (RSMo.1978), was sentenced to death. The sentence was affirmed on appeal, State v. Nave, 694 S.W.2d 729 (Mo. banc 1985).

Movant alleges that the trial court failed to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues with the specificity required under Rule 27.26(i), and Fields v. State, 572 S.W.2d 477 (Mo.1978). We agree; the findings and conclusions did not address several of the allegations presented in the evidentiary hearing. For example, we are unable to determine the trial court’s rulings concerning counsel’s questioning of Richard Beeman. Also, among other issues left unresolved, was the court’s ruling concerning the adequacy of counsel in the presentation of evidence about movant’s prior history of drug and alcohol abuse.

We are not unmindful of the stresses and time pressures imposed on a circuit judge. We realize that the preparation of detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law is time consuming and requires the cooperation of the parties. Here, we must keep in mind that movant was convicted of capital murder and given a death sentence. As a result, all aspects of his trial and post-trial proceedings are subject to, and will receive, strict scrutiny. Thus, we reverse and remand, not for a further evidentiary hearing, but for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues presented. In view of our holding, we do not reach the issue of whether movant was denied his right to effective counsel.

SIMON, P.J., and CRANDALL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

737 S.W.2d 526, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 4713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nave-v-state-moctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack