Court Opinion

ID: 9779233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:40:59.448518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:23.989582
License: Public Domain

FINCH, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent because I cannot agree that the order by the trial court amounted to findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to all the allegations asserted in the motion to vacate under rule 27.26. As the principal opinion recognizes, the state, in its motion to dismiss, called attention to our holding in Colbert v. State, 486 S.W.2d 219 (Mo. 1972). It stated that an examination of the record disclosed that what occurred exceeded the minimum requirement which this court had held to be necessary on the acceptance of a guilty plea and that the record conclusively showed that the movant was entitled to no relief under rule 27.26. Pursuant to that motion, the trial court summarily denied the motion in reliance on the Colbert case. That is understandable because the court was simply doing what we indicated in Colbert was proper.
Subsequent to our decision in Colbert (and after the trial court dismissed mov-ant’s motion to vacate), the Supreme Court of the United States decided Fontaine v. United States, 411 U.S. 213, 93 S.Ct. 1461, 36 L.Ed.2d 169. That case held that on the record before it, the court could not conclude with the assurance required that the record conclusively showed that under no circumstances could the petitioner establish facts warranting relief under § 2255 U.S.C.A. (which corresponds generally with our rule 27.26). Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for an evi-dentiary hearing.
*414As the principal opinion points out, the movant in Fontaine had no attorney when he entered his plea of guilty. The decision in Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973) indicates a somewhat different test when the defendant pleaded guilty on advice of counsel. However, I would reach no conclusion at this time as to whether an eviden-tiary hearing is required in this case. That question can properly be considered and decided by us under rule 27.26 only on the basis of a review of findings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial court pursuant to rule 27.26(i).
There are two alternative courses available to obtain such findings and conclusions. One (following a course utilized on some previous occasions) would be to enter an order directing the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on movant’s allegations based on the record before the trial court, including a finding as to whether on the record (including the guilty plea hearing record) it can be said that under no circumstances could petitioner based on his allegations establish facts warranting relief. The trial court then would certify those findings and conclusions to this court. Meanwhile, a decision herein would be held in abeyance pending receipt of those findings and conclusions.
The other alternative would be to reverse and remand to the trial court for it to determine in the light of Fontaine v. United States, 411 U.S. 213, 93 S.Ct. 1416, 36 L.Ed.2d 169 (1973), whether an eviden-tiary hearing on movant’s allegations is required or whether on the record (including the guilty plea hearing record) it can be said that under no circumstances could petitioner based on his allegations establish facts warranting relief. In either event (whether after an evidentiary hearing or based on a determination from the files and records), the trial court should make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by rule 27.26 (i) to the end that on appeal the kind of appellate review contemplated by rule 27.26 will be possible.