Dudley, 819 S.W.2d at 56; see Williams, 945 S.W.2d at 582; Simmons, 875 S.W.2d at 923; Pendas, 855 S.W.2d at 516; Childress-Bey v. State, 779 S.W.2d 697, 699 (Mo.Ct.App. 1989). See also Jennings, 815 S.W.2d at 448-49 (requiring that the motion "state the facts to which the unproduced witness would have testified" before an evidentiary hearing is granted); Barton v. State, 802 S.W.2d 561, 562 (Mo.Ct.App. 1991) (same); Fitzgerald, 781 S.W.2d at 188 (movant must allege the facts to which the witness would testify and must make the witness known to counsel); Johnson v. State, 776 S.W.2d 456, 458 (Mo.Ct.App. 1989) (movant must allege the facts to which the witness would testify). The Missouri Supreme Court upheld the post-conviction court's decision because the pleading "did not connect a specific portion of the narrative to a particular witness, did not allege that counsel was informed of their existence, and did not state that any of the witnesses were available to testify."
In Robinson v. State, 785 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Mo.App.E.D. 1990), it was held that reversal was not required for alleged insufficiency in the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law where the motion itself was insufficient and, therefore, ineffective. In addition, it has been held that an appellate court has discretion to finally dispose of a case where the record clearly demonstrates that the motion court reached the correct result, even though it did not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, State v. Scott, 829 S.W.2d 120, 122 (Mo.App.E.D. 1992), or even though the findings and conclusions are insufficient. State v. Prowell, 834 S.W.2d 852, 857-858 (Mo.App.E.D. 1992); Barton v. State, 802 S.W.2d 561, 565 (Mo.App.S.D. 1991); Robinson v. State, 785 S.W.2d at 324. We do not endorse the type of finding made by the motion court in the instant case, and this opinion should not be construed as an indication that similar findings would escape the granting of relief under different facts.
Where, as here, the correctness of the motion court's action is clear from the record, there is no need to remand for additional findings and conclusions. State v. Brewster, 836 S.W.2d 9, 14[5] (Mo.App.E.D. 1992); Barton v. State, 802 S.W.2d 561, 565[6] (Mo.App.S.D. 1991). Movant's second point is denied, and the judgment of the motion court is affirmed.
Even when findings are somewhat deficient, there is no need to remand for further findings and conclusions if the record allows an appellate court to determine the correctness of the trial court's action. Barton v. State, 802 S.W.2d 561, 565 (Mo.App. 1991). The basis of the trial court's determination was sufficiently clear from its findings for this court to review the decision.
Where as here, the correctness of the motion court's action is clear from the record, there is no need to remand for such findings and conclusions. Barton v. State, 802 S.W.2d 561, 565 (Mo.App. 1991). No additional findings or conclusions are necessary to determine the court did not err in denying a request for re-sentencing.
However, it is within our discretion to finally dispose of a case where the record clearly demonstrates that the motion court reached a correct decision. Barton v. State, 802 S.W.2d 561, 565 (Mo.App. 1991); Robinson v. State, 785 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Mo.App. 1990). We choose to exercise this discretion because the amended and pro se motions in this case fail to allege any facts showing that movant is entitled to relief. Accordingly, for reasons of judicial economy and because we are cognizant of the fact that the motion judge is now deceased, we overlook his failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 29.15(i).
Where a prisoner's motion for post-conviction relief avers his lawyer rendered ineffective assistance by failing to present a witness in the trial court, the motion must state the facts to which the unproduced witness would have testified; if the motion fails to do so the prisoner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Barton v. State, 802 S.W.2d 561, 562-63 (Mo.App. 1991); Mathenia v. State, 752 S.W.2d 873, 876 (Mo.App. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1019, 109 S.Ct. 819, 102 L.Ed.2d 809 (1989); Sinclair v. State, 708 S.W.2d 333, 336 (Mo.App. 1986). Neither the above-quoted passage from Appellant's pro se motion nor the above-quoted passage from the first amended motion supplies a clue as to what Ms. Allen's testimony would have been had defense counsel presented her as a witness regarding the seizure of the items in the apartment.
We address each point in turn. To be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of ineffectiveness of counsel, a movant seeking relief under Rule 29.15 must plead facts, not conclusions, which if true would warrant relief. Barton v. State, 802 S.W.2d 561, 562 (Mo.App. 1991). The allegations must be unrefuted by the record, and the matters complained of must have prejudiced movant.