Hollingshead v. State, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1592

Hollingshead pled guilty to second-degree murder under a plea agreement with a 21-year cap (lid).
In the plea colloquy he acknowledged the terms, understood potential maximum sentence, and waived rights to a jury trial in exchange for the deal.
The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced Hollingshead to 21 years after a sentencing assessment.
On January 27, 2009, Hollingshead pro se filed a Rule 24.035 motion to vacate; amended motion was filed September 30, 2009 by appointed counsel.
Amended motion claimed the plea was not knowingly or intelligently entered because plea counsel allegedly promised a 15-year sentence.
The motion court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing or reasons beyond a blanket denial; Hollingshead appealed remanding the case for proper Rule 24.035(j) findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the motion court complied with Rule 24.035(j) requiring findings.	Hollingshead contends no proper findings were issued.	State argues standard appellate review applies if the court issued adequate reasoning.	Remanded for entry of proper findings and conclusions.

Brown v. State, 810 S.W.2d 716 (Mo. App. W.D.1991) (reversal when no findings under Rule 24.035(j))
Gaddis v. State, 121 S.W.3d 308 (Mo.App. W.D.2003) (reversed for lack of proper findings where no hearing or proper conclusions were provided)
Johnson v. State, 210 S.W.3d 427 (Mo.App. S.D.2006) (standard of review when findings exist; requires that findings be present)
Barry v. State, 850 S.W.2d 348 (Mo. Banc.1993) (recognizes exceptions to Rule 24.035(j) when appropriate)
Bowens v. State, 18 S.W.3d 118 (Mo.App. E.D.2000) (lists additional exceptions to Rule 24.035 compliance)
Thomas v. State, 808 S.W.2d 364 (Mo. Banc.1991) (discusses applicability of civil rules to post-conviction proceedings)
Gaddis v. State, 121 S.W.3d 308 (Mo.App. W.D.2003) (reiterates need for proper findings on post-conviction motion)