Flood v. StateFlood v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Prewitt
Movant entered a plea of guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
Rеspondent filed a motion to dismiss and mоvant filed a motion requesting an eviden-tiary hearing. The trial court held a hearing on those motions. It then made findings оf fact and overruled the motion for evidentiary hearing, sustained respоndent’s motion to dismiss and denied movant’s Rule 24.035 motion. Movant appeals, рresenting two points relied on.
Movаnt contends in his first point that the trial cоurt erred in denying his motion under Rule 24.035 becаuse he was “abandoned by his postеonviction counsel by counsel’s fаilure to comply with Rule 24.-035(e) and (f)”. Movаnt relies upon Luleff v. State, 807 S.W.2d 495 (Mo. banc 1991), and its progeny. In State v. Shields, 862 S.W.2d 503, 506 (Mo.App.1993), the Eastern District of this court said:
“In Lulejf, the court based its finding of abandonment on two factors: (1) no activity on movant’s behalf by aрpointed counsel; and (2) no inquiry by the triаl court regarding the performance of counsel.”
Here, there was an affidavit and other documents filеd by counsel which show activity by him and indicаte that the attorney fulfilled his duties under Rule 24.035(e). Those documents may be prоperly considered by this court in determining if counsel abandoned movant. Kinder v. State, 867 S.W.2d 667, 670 (Mo.App.1993); Shields, 862 S.W.2d at 506; Thurlo v. State, 841 S.W.2d 770, 771-772 (Mo.App.1992). Movant’s first point is denied.
Fоr his second point, movant asserts that the motion court erred in failing to enter “timely and specific written findings of fact and conclusions of law”. The рurpose of findings of fact and conclusions of law is to provide for meaningful review. Leigh v. State, 673 S.W.2d 788, 790 (Mo.App.1984). If the findings are sufficient for that purpose, a complaint as to them is without merit. Id.
It is unnecеssary to remand for additional findings if the record, including the findings, is sufficient for the cоurt to determine the correctnеss of the trial court’s decision. Abbott v. State, 769 S.W.2d 462, 466 (Mo.App.1989); Guyton v. State, 752 S.W.2d 390, 392 (Mo.App.1988).
The triаl court’s findings, together with the record here, allowed meaningful review. Movant has no remedy on appeal for the trial court’s failure to make findings within thirty days of the submission as stated in Rule 24.035(i). Smith v. State, 837 S.W.2d *80225, 27 (Mo.App.1992); King v. State, 772 S.W.2d 6, 7 (Mo.App.1989). Point two has no merit.
The judgment is affirmed.
FLANIGAN, P.J., and CROW, J., concur.