Opinion ID: 1381947
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Motion court's failure to make findings on all issues

Text: For his fourth point, Edwards complains that the motion court only made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on five of the 14 issues he pled. Rule 29.15(j) states, [t]he court shall issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues presented, whether or not a hearing is held..... Findings and conclusions on a post-conviction motion must be sufficiently specific to allow meaningful appellate review. Barry v. State, 850 S.W.2d 348, 350 (Mo. banc 1993). The court, however, is not required to individually address every claim brought by the movant. Generalized findings are sufficient so long as they permit the appellate court an adequate record for appellate review of movant's claims. Franklin v. State, 24 S.W.3d 686, 692 (Mo. banc 2000). Findings of fact are not required where the issue is solely one of law. White v. State, 939 S.W.2d 887, 903 (Mo. banc 1997); Barry, 850 S.W.2d at 350. Although Edwards claims that the motion court only made findings on five issues, in his brief he only specifies three issues for which findings were not made. First, Edwards complains that the motion court did not address his allegation that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of Edwards' childhood through his mother. A review of the motion court's judgment shows that the court found Edwards' trial counsel provided effective assistance of counsel and conducted an appropriate investigation into Edwards' background. The motion court noted that counsel had multiple visits with Edwards before trial, had three experts evaluate Edwards, and interviewed multiple witnesses. Although the generalized finding that counsel were effective could have applied to many of Edwards' claims, such generalized findings are not fatal where, as here, the motion court clearly considered counsel's effectiveness and the appropriateness of counsel's investigation. Second, Edwards complains that the motion court did not make specific findings relating to his argument that Crawford applied retroactively to his claim that he was denied the right to confrontation. As discussed above, Crawford is inapplicable, so a remand to the motion court on this issue would be pointless. Further, this is a question of law and findings of fact are not required. Third, Edwards claims that the motion court did not make specific findings on the issue of Wilson's recantation. Since this Court has determined that Edwards did not meet the standard to obtain a hearing on this issue, there would be no point in remanding to the motion court.