343 S.W.3d 766
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant Kevin Smith was convicted by jury of two counts of first-degree tampering, one count of felony stealing, one count of misdemeanor stealing, and one count of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia.
- He was sentenced on February 15, 2007, as a prior and persistent offender to two consecutive ten-year terms for tampering, with the other counts served concurrently or concurrently with one-year terms.
- Direct appeal affirmed Smith’s convictions and sentences in State v. Smith, 241 S.W.3d 864 (Mo.App. W.D. 2008).
- Smith filed a Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion alleging numerous ineffective-assistance claims; an amended motion added seven more claims.
- The motion court granted an evidentiary hearing, but precluded evidence on four amended claims at State’s request.
- The motion court found one claim (failure to call an appraisal expert) meritorious, vacated the felony-stealing conviction, and denied the rest without specific findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion court’s Rule 29.15(j) findings were sufficient for review | Smith contends findings are insufficient for meaningful review. | State argues the court’s findings were adequate or the issues do not require more detail. | Remanded for proper, specific findings on all issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Merrick v. State, 324 S.W.3d 469 (Mo.App. S.D. 2010) (necessity of findings and conclusions under Rule 29.15(j))
- Hollingshead v. State, 324 S.W.3d 779 (Mo.App. W.D. 2010) (findings must enable meaningful appellate review)
- Bode v. State, 316 S.W.3d 406 (Mo.App. W.D. 2010) (failure to issue explicit findings generally requires remand)
- Johnson v. State, 210 S.W.3d 427 (Mo.App. S.D. 2006) (meaningful review premised on sufficiently specific findings)