{"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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","party":{"slug":"ralph-h-cato","displayName":"Ralph H. Cato","totalCases":1},"cases":[{"caseId":"moappd:ed106996:2019-08-13","opinionId":"d2bfb6ce-6487-5e75-8928-9b31e6786047","slug":"ralph-h-cato-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-106996","caseName":"Ralph H. Cato, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED106996","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-08-13","year":2019,"display_summary":"Ralph Cato appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. He contended his trial counsel failed to make an offer of proof regarding the victim's alleged gang membership and marijuana dealing. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding no clear error in the abandonment inquiry or the denial of the ineffective assistance claim, and reiterated that failure to preserve error is not a cognizable claim in a Rule 29.15 motion.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=143235","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ralph-h-cato-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-106996","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","evidence":["tag: criminal-law","topic: criminal-procedure","text: state of missouri","text: conviction"],"url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","evidence":["topic: evidence","topic: appellate-procedure"],"url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"}]}