{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","party":{"slug":"jamie-bell","displayName":"JAMIE BELL","totalCases":1},"cases":[{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35339:2018-11-05","opinionId":"f092c966-9539-5c9d-bc53-bc09b0b3a5f8","slug":"jamie-bell-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d35339","caseName":"JAMIE BELL, Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35339","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-11-05","year":2018,"display_summary":"Jamie Bell filed a pro se Rule 29.15 motion, and his retained counsel later filed an untimely amended motion. The motion court, following Gittemeier v. State, declined an abandonment inquiry and denied relief, finding the pro se claims not cognizable. On appeal, Bell argued the motion court abused its discretion by following Gittemeier, claiming State v. Bazell introduced a new statutory interpretation. The appellate court disagreed, affirming the judgment and stating that Bazell does not authorize trial judges to disregard controlling case law on pending issues.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=132994","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jamie-bell-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d35339","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","evidence":["tag: criminal-law","topic: criminal-procedure"],"url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","evidence":["topic: appellate-procedure"],"url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"}]}