Opinion ID: 1427943
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Signing of the Attorney General's Proposed Findings

Text: Mr. Zink alleges that the motion court erred by signing the findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by the attorney general's office. He contends that because the motion court found individuals to be credible on certain matters and the same individuals to be incredible on other matters, the Rule 29.15 hearing and conclusions were a meaningless formality. As the trier of fact, the trial court determines the credibility of witnesses and is free to believe or disbelieve all or part of the witnesses' testimony. Blue Ridge Bank and Trust Co. v. Hart, 152 S.W.3d 420, 426 (Mo.App.2005). Simply because the motion court found individuals to be credible on certain issues and not credible on others does not indicate any error by the motion court. While [t]rial judges are well advised to approach a party's proposed order with the sharp eye of a skeptic and the sharp pencil of an editor, Massman Const. Co. v. Missouri Highway & Transp. Com'n, 914 S.W.2d 801, 804 (Mo. banc 1996), [a]s long as the court thoughtfully and carefully considers the parties' proposed findings and agrees with the content, there is no constitutional problem with the court adopting in whole or in part the findings of fact and conclusions of law drafted by one of the parties. State v. White, 873 S.W.2d 590, 600 (Mo. banc 1994) (overruled in part on other grounds). Here, there is no indication that the court did not consider thoughtfully and carefully the parties' proposed findings. Furthermore, the record supports these findings. As such, there is no evidence of any constitutional problems.