concurring in part.
I concur in the affirmance of the conviction.
Once again, I must protest about the sorry situation in which the state furnishes postconviction counsel to the defendant and then denies full review of the trial court’s judgment because of the fault of counsel so appointed.1 The resulting situation is not one in which we can take pride. I would take the opportunity presented us to finalize the judgment insofar as the state courts are concerned, by reviewing the trial court’s findings and conclusion on the amended motion.
Failing this, I can only hope that other courts which may have occasion to hear the *517defendant’s plea will give these findings and conclusions the weight they deserve.
. See, e.g. State v. Vinson, 800 S.W.2d 444 (Mo. banc 1990) (Blackmar, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Smith v. State, 798 S.W.2d 152 (Mo. banc 1990) (Blackmar, C.J., dissenting); and Malone v. State, 798 S.W.2d 149 (Mo. banc 1990) (Blackmar, C.J., concurring in result).