{"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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","party":{"slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent","displayName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-","totalCases":100},"cases":[{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38589:2025-08-29","opinionId":"620053de-4a19-54f4-8c5c-ec4f6bf7309a","slug":"christina-n-knapp-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d38589","caseName":"CHRISTINA N. KNAPP, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38589","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christina N. Knapp appealed the denial of her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, claiming her plea counsel coerced her into pleading guilty, rendering her plea unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary. The motion court denied relief, finding plea counsel's testimony credible and that Knapp's plea was voluntary. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the motion court did not clearly err because the plea hearing record and counsel's testimony refuted Knapp's claims of coercion and ineffective assistance of counsel.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224294","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christina-n-knapp-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d38589","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38530:2025-08-29","opinionId":"a733c383-c981-5635-9cf4-cae16343912f","slug":"howard-roberts-movant-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-appellant-d38530","caseName":"HOWARD ROBERTS, Movant-Respondent\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38530","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri appealed an \"Amended Order and Judgment\" from the motion court, which granted Howard Roberts' Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, vacated his conviction and sentence, ordered a new trial, and directed his immediate release. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding the Amended Order was not a final judgment because it failed to adjudicate all of Roberts' viable claims. Additionally, the court vacated the portion of the order releasing Roberts, holding that Rule 30.17 mandates a defendant remain in custody during the State's appeal of a post-conviction relief order.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224295","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/howard-roberts-movant-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-appellant-d38530","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":42,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38062:2025-08-20","opinionId":"466b9c03-6ac8-51f4-851f-20fe035f9185","slug":"martin-priest-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d38062","caseName":"MARTIN PRIEST, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38062","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"Martin Priest appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, which sought to set aside his 1984 first-degree murder conviction based on claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Priest argued his counsel failed to impeach key witnesses and exclude tainted identification evidence. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial of relief, finding its decision was not clearly erroneous.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"transferred","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223653","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/martin-priest-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d38062","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38558:2025-08-12","opinionId":"4f6011d5-154b-5901-b683-a5d1d78f1866","slug":"donald-wayne-mcmannis-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-res-d38558","caseName":"DONALD WAYNE McMANNIS, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38558","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Donald McMannis appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion to set aside his conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI), which was enhanced to a class B felony due to his habitual offender status. McMannis argued his sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law because the State's evidence was insufficient to prove his habitual offender status. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, holding that a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence for habitual offender status is not cognizable in a Rule 29.15 proceeding, the claim was abandoned due to lack of evidence, and the *Nowicki* opinion on prior DWI convictions does not apply retroactively.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223414","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/donald-wayne-mcmannis-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-res-d38558","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38346:2025-07-25","opinionId":"b71d769b-1bb1-538a-bd25-46834126afe6","slug":"kenneth-m-sauter-jr-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-d38346","caseName":"KENNETH M. SAUTER, JR., Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38346","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Kenneth Sauter appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court determined that Sauter's amended motion was untimely due to appointed counsel's error in applying the wrong version of the rules, constituting abandonment. However, following recent precedent, the court proceeded to review the merits of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The court affirmed the motion court's denial of relief, finding no clear error in its conclusion that sentencing counsel was not ineffective for failing to call two mitigation witnesses, as their testimony would not have added material information beyond the sentencing assessment report.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222573","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kenneth-m-sauter-jr-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-d38346","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38441:2025-05-23","opinionId":"0c156b3b-34bd-5429-b689-6216fd1168c6","slug":"jordan-c-haden-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d38441","caseName":"JORDAN C. HADEN, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38441","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jordan C. Haden appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, seeking to vacate convictions for second-degree assault and resisting arrest. He alleged ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to properly litigate his persistent misdemeanor offender status. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, holding that Haden was barred from relitigating the issue because it had previously been reviewed for plain error on direct appeal, where the court found no error.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220894","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jordan-c-haden-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d38441","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38318:2025-04-28","opinionId":"2d078e1c-d3f9-5433-826d-6bca96001bdc","slug":"brandy-b-shaddox-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d38318","caseName":"BRANDY B. SHADDOX, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38318","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Brandy B. Shaddox appealed the denial of her Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, following her convictions for first-degree murder and other offenses. She claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to pursue a diminished capacity defense and for errors related to jury instructions. The motion court denied her claims, finding counsel's decisions were reasonable trial strategy and that no prejudice resulted from the instructional errors. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, concluding its findings were not clearly erroneous.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220074","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/brandy-b-shaddox-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d38318","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38538:2025-04-17","opinionId":"da1afb55-b7cb-59b1-b401-4b5798405b42","slug":"chad-r-emmerson-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d38538","caseName":"CHAD R. EMMERSON, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38538","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Chad R. Emmerson appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him to enter an Alford plea without fully informing him of the sentencing judge's practices and the 85% rule. Emmerson claimed this rendered his plea unknowing, involuntary, and unintelligent. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, holding that Emmerson failed to demonstrate prejudice because he did not show that he would have proceeded to trial but for counsel's alleged errors, only that he would have entered a different type of guilty plea.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219773","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/chad-r-emmerson-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d38538","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38432:2025-02-26","opinionId":"193a55c7-efbe-5807-b81f-d7900083bc85","slug":"ronald-r-spradling-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respon-d38432","caseName":"RONALD R. SPRADLING, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38432","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-26","year":2025,"display_summary":"Ronald R. Spradling appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, following his convictions for kidnapping, armed criminal action, and other offenses. He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request a self-defense instruction with forcible felony language and for failing to object to the State's improper questioning regarding witness credibility. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, finding no evidentiary support for the requested self-defense instruction and concluding that Spradling failed to demonstrate prejudice from counsel's failure to object to the credibility questions.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217894","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ronald-r-spradling-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respon-d38432","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38438:2024-11-27","opinionId":"01708664-68e2-5927-b274-73d6bbb79f7d","slug":"terry-d-morrison-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d38438","caseName":"TERRY D. MORRISON, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38438","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-27","year":2024,"display_summary":"Terry D. Morrison appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Morrison claimed his counsel was ineffective for offering lesser-included offense instructions (second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter) when the defense strategy was an \"all or nothing\" approach. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, holding that offering lesser-included instructions was a reasonable trial strategy and Morrison failed to demonstrate prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215054","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/terry-d-morrison-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d38438","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38197:2024-10-22","opinionId":"39216bc7-a48b-5874-81f5-2fa22edaafaa","slug":"kevin-c-newman-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d38197","caseName":"KEVIN C. NEWMAN, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38197","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-22","year":2024,"display_summary":"Kevin C. Newman appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance from both his trial and appellate counsel following his first-degree murder conviction. Newman argued his appellate counsel failed to challenge the sufficiency of evidence, and his trial counsel failed to object to certain photographs and closing arguments. The Southern District of Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the motion court's denial, finding no merit in any of Newman's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213873","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kevin-c-newman-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d38197","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38108:2024-07-10","opinionId":"b8a768c6-5bbf-57e5-b3f8-40b4737e8d9f","slug":"john-michael-house-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respon-d38108","caseName":"JOHN MICHAEL HOUSE, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38108","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-10","year":2024,"display_summary":"Jason House appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for not presenting mental health evidence as a mitigating factor during sentencing for his murder and assault convictions. The motion court, which was also the sentencing court, denied relief, finding counsel's strategy reasonable and that it had considered all relevant evidence. The appellate court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, concluding that counsel was not ineffective and House failed to show prejudice. However, the court remanded the case for the motion court to correct a clerical error in the sentencing order regarding consecutive vs. concurrent sentences.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209595","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-michael-house-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respon-d38108","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38185:2024-07-09","opinionId":"b02e5384-75e4-5521-9223-7382afa6fc44","slug":"chris-courtois-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d38185","caseName":"CHRIS COURTOIS, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38185","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"Chris Courtois appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, raising two points. First, he argued his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress statements to police. Second, he claimed the motion court plainly erred by not inquiring whether his amended motion included all known claims. The Southern District affirmed the motion court's judgment, concluding that appellate counsel made a strategic decision not to pursue a meritless claim regarding the voluntariness of Courtois's statements, and that plain error review is not available for claims not raised in a post-conviction motion.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209573","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/chris-courtois-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d38185","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37932:2024-05-23","opinionId":"806fabdd-722f-54bf-9875-daafff229d3d","slug":"patrick-ellswood-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d37932","caseName":"PATRICK ELLSWOOD, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37932","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Patrick Ellswood appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to claim the trial court erred by denying his request for a second psychiatric examination. The motion court found that Ellswood had waived his request for a second mental evaluation. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, concluding that Ellswood's actions, including withdrawing unresolved motions, constituted a waiver of his statutory right to a second mental examination, and therefore, appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a waived issue.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208353","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/patrick-ellswood-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d37932","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37744:2024-05-21","opinionId":"3ea199a3-73df-5850-b849-b168803fce32","slug":"david-k-holman-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d37744","caseName":"DAVID K. HOLMAN, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37744","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-21","year":2024,"display_summary":"David K. Holman appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, seeking to overturn his convictions for first-degree murder and armed criminal action. Holman alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to hire a forensic expert and claimed the motion court erred by excluding and failing to consider certain exhibits. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding its denial of post-conviction relief was not clearly erroneous.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208254","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-k-holman-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d37744","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37822:2024-05-09","opinionId":"0c5c01d6-38e7-564a-ad89-90ad1526a54d","slug":"clayton-d-counts-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d37822","caseName":"CLAYTON D. COUNTS, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37822","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"Clayton D. Counts appealed the dismissal of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which the motion court found untimely. Counts argued his late filing was excusable due to third-party interference from COVID-19 restrictions in prison and challenged the denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding Counts failed to prove the third-party interference exception. The court also held that remand for findings of fact and conclusions of law was not required, as it would be useless given the lack of evidence supporting Counts's claims.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207974","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/clayton-d-counts-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d37822","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37885:2024-03-12","opinionId":"5a75511e-93fd-5033-88af-2a5a78a0ec7f","slug":"gabriel-n-wood-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d37885","caseName":"GABRIEL N. WOOD, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37885","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Gabriel Wood appealed the denial of his amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Wood claimed counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain and introduce bank account records that would have supported his defense against a first-degree burglary charge. The motion court found counsel's performance deficient but denied relief, concluding Wood was not prejudiced. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the bank records would not have disproved an element of the burglary offense, thus failing to establish prejudice under Strickland.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206392","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gabriel-n-wood-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d37885","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37250:2024-02-23","opinionId":"6dcd9e6c-d36c-511a-9593-9bbc2b7f365b","slug":"larry-g-mcconnell-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d37250","caseName":"LARRY G. MCCONNELL, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37250","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Larry G. McConnell appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, seeking to overturn convictions for statutory sodomy and rape. McConnell argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present his wife's medical and church attendance records, which would have contradicted the victim's testimony regarding the timing of the abuse. The appellate court reversed the motion court's order, finding that counsel's failure to investigate was clearly erroneous and prejudiced McConnell, thereby undermining confidence in the trial's outcome. The court vacated McConnell's convictions and remanded the case for a new trial.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205773","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/larry-g-mcconnell-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d37250","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37871:2024-01-23","opinionId":"273906f4-ed0d-55c2-9e96-f42b64ab372d","slug":"crowin-king-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d37871","caseName":"CROWIN KING, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37871","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Crowin King appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. King claimed counsel failed to call a digital forensic expert and failed to object to testimony about prior uncharged misconduct. The motion court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed, finding that counsel's decision regarding the expert was sound trial strategy and that King failed to show prejudice from the unobjected-to testimony in a court-tried case.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204833","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/crowin-king-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d37871","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37473:2023-11-15","opinionId":"08851dcf-fae8-52bb-b8a0-506625fa780f","slug":"aaron-m-burnett-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d37473","caseName":"AARON M. BURNETT, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37473","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-11-15","year":2023,"display_summary":"Aaron M. Burnett appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, claiming his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of the possibility of consecutive sentences, which he argued rendered his guilty plea involuntary. The motion court denied his claim after an evidentiary hearing, finding the record refuted his assertion of prejudice. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Burnett failed to establish prejudice because he was aware of the statutory maximum sentence for each count and his plea was knowing and voluntary despite his alleged lack of advice on consecutive sentences.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202793","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/aaron-m-burnett-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d37473","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37816:2023-11-14","opinionId":"bd444a09-1695-5569-968e-ca13d922289f","slug":"james-robert-caraway-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-resp-d37816","caseName":"JAMES ROBERT CARAWAY, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37816","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-11-14","year":2023,"display_summary":"James Robert Caraway was convicted of child pornography and sought to represent himself, leading to a Faretta hearing. After conviction, he filed a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his waiver of counsel was unknowing because the trial court failed to inquire about potential defenses. The motion court denied relief, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that such a claim is not cognizable in a post-conviction relief proceeding as it should have been raised on direct appeal.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202774","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-robert-caraway-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-resp-d37816","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37647:2023-09-19","opinionId":"469fa90b-821b-5fb4-aabe-c488daa6e5b0","slug":"qwenten-deon-amlin-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respon-d37647","caseName":"QWENTEN DEON AMLIN, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37647","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"Qwenten Deon Amlin appealed the motion court's denial of his amended motion for postconviction relief under Rule 29.15, which followed an evidentiary hearing. Amlin raised four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) and one claim that the motion court failed to make required findings and conclusions of law. The appellate court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, finding no merit in any of Amlin's points.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201256","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/qwenten-deon-amlin-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respon-d37647","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37782:2023-09-01","opinionId":"a2043fcf-ec8f-5b05-9d1d-b5a9444eb6d8","slug":"jose-a-huckleberry-jr-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-res-d37782","caseName":"JOSE A. HUCKLEBERRY, JR., Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37782","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-01","year":2023,"display_summary":"Movant Jose Huckleberry, Jr. appealed the denial of his amended Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing on all six claims. The motion court's order only addressed one claim concerning appellate counsel, leaving five claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel unadjudicated. The appellate court agreed with both parties that the motion court's order was not a final judgment because it failed to resolve all claims. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for lack of a final judgment.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=200633","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jose-a-huckleberry-jr-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-res-d37782","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37515:2023-08-10","opinionId":"394e2ce5-c474-52d9-a5b7-efa9db2d5aa1","slug":"randall-owens-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d37515","caseName":"RANDALL OWENS, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37515","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-08-10","year":2023,"display_summary":"Randall Owens appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel after his convictions for assault and unlawful use of a weapon. The appellate court determined that Owens' appointed counsel filed the amended post-conviction motion one day late, creating a presumption of abandonment. Consequently, the court vacated the motion court's order and remanded the case with instructions for the motion court to conduct an inquiry into whether Owens was abandoned by his counsel.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=198396","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/randall-owens-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d37515","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37698:2023-07-10","opinionId":"90f1e1a5-1289-5132-85a9-f3506bbf51b3","slug":"tommy-r-morris-plaintiff-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d37698","caseName":"TOMMY R. MORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37698","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-07-10","year":2023,"display_summary":"Tommy R. Morris appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to request a change of venue. The motion court denied the relief after an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the motion court did not clearly err in finding counsel's decision was objectively reasonable and that Morris failed to demonstrate prejudice, particularly given his waiver of a jury trial.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=197373","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tommy-r-morris-plaintiff-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d37698","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37458:2023-05-31","opinionId":"37e17cec-4f9e-5612-b5d4-21ad71ba6768","slug":"isis-k-schauer-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d37458","caseName":"ISIS K. SCHAUER, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37458","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-31","year":2023,"display_summary":"Isis Schauer appealed the denial of her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, asserting five claims of ineffective assistance of counsel related to her guilty plea. The motion court denied the claims, finding them refuted by the record and not credible. The appellate court vacated the motion court's order, holding that the record did not conclusively refute Schauer's allegations and that credibility determinations could not be made without an evidentiary hearing. The case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing on all claims.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196093","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/isis-k-schauer-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d37458","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37556:2023-04-06","opinionId":"4b0049d7-e242-5a02-866c-6f135621e354","slug":"james-w-henneha-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d37556","caseName":"JAMES W. HENNEHA, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37556","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-04-06","year":2023,"display_summary":"James W. Henneha appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which the motion court dismissed as untimely filed. Henneha argued that circumstances beyond his control, including the COVID-19 pandemic and solitary confinement, justified the late filing. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the motion court did not clearly err in concluding Henneha failed to prove a recognized exception to the timeliness requirement, as he did not show he did all he reasonably could to ensure timely filing or that the delay was solely due to third-party interference.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194273","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-w-henneha-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d37556","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37528:2023-04-05","opinionId":"86407542-86a6-5221-b733-d7dc001871ad","slug":"joshua-johnson-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d37528","caseName":"JOSHUA JOHNSON, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37528","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-04-05","year":2023,"display_summary":"Joshua Johnson appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Johnson claimed his guilty plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel regarding sentencing advice and that his constitutional rights were violated when sentencing continued while he was unconscious. The motion court found Johnson's testimony not credible, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the motion court did not clearly err in finding the plea knowing and voluntary, and that the claim regarding his presence at sentencing was not cognizable in a post-conviction motion.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194233","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joshua-johnson-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d37528","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37328:2023-03-09","opinionId":"38d57df3-3722-5c0f-8823-a92ef31ae6f5","slug":"chris-courtois-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d37328","caseName":"CHRIS COURTOIS, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37328","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-03-09","year":2023,"display_summary":"Chris Courtois appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 amended motion for post-conviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The appellate court determined that the motion court had granted an extension for filing the amended motion after the mandatory deadline had passed, rendering the motion untimely. Consequently, the court reversed the motion court's order and remanded the case with directions for the motion court to conduct an abandonment inquiry to determine if Movant was abandoned by post-conviction counsel before proceeding further.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193193","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/chris-courtois-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d37328","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37482:2023-02-06","opinionId":"d23d0370-4d44-5231-aadf-019e1c17ab2f","slug":"james-d-moreland-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d37482","caseName":"JAMES D. MORELAND, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37482","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-02-06","year":2023,"display_summary":"James D. Moreland appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his guilty plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Moreland claimed his attorney inaccurately advised him he would receive probation and mental health court if he entered an open plea. The motion court found that both plea counsel and trial counsel testified they never guaranteed a specific sentence, and Moreland's plea colloquy confirmed no promises were made. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, concluding it did not clearly err in finding Moreland's plea was knowing and voluntary.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192273","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-d-moreland-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d37482","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37251:2022-12-05","opinionId":"36216fd5-a488-58bc-9315-8f3c297edd50","slug":"justin-w-lawrence-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d37251","caseName":"JUSTIN W. LAWRENCE, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37251","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-12-05","year":2022,"display_summary":"Justin W. Lawrence appealed the dismissal of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion as untimely, arguing his plea counsel's incorrect advice constituted active interference. Lawrence contended counsel told him to wait until his 15-year sentence was executed before filing, which led to a three-year delay. The motion court dismissed the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed, holding that mere reliance on counsel's advice, without showing an attempt to timely file, does not meet the \"active interference\" exception, and the record refuted his claim of being misinformed about the filing deadline.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190973","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/justin-w-lawrence-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d37251","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37227:2022-11-17","opinionId":"19657346-3725-5b5f-9249-6339f38d2dda","slug":"jamaal-j-walls-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d37227","caseName":"JAMAAL J. WALLS, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37227","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-11-17","year":2022,"display_summary":"Jamaal J. Walls pleaded guilty to burglary and failure to appear, receiving consecutive sentences. His burglary judgment erroneously classified him as a dangerous offender. Walls filed Rule 24.035 motions, and the motion court removed the erroneous language but denied his request to vacate his guilty pleas. On appeal, Walls argued the motion court erred in refusing to vacate his pleas, but the appellate court affirmed, holding that Walls failed to preserve the issue for review by not filing a Rule 78.07(c) motion to amend the judgment to include findings and conclusions on his due process claim.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190544","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jamaal-j-walls-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d37227","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37314:2022-09-06","opinionId":"27bd9bbc-553b-515e-a1b3-f39302ea62eb","slug":"jerry-glenn-haffly-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respon-d37314","caseName":"JERRY GLENN HAFFLY ,Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37314","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-09-06","year":2022,"display_summary":"Jerry Glenn Haffly appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, claiming his trial counsel had an actual conflict of interest because she previously represented the confidential informant (C.I.) in his case. The motion court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Haffly failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that trial counsel had an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected her performance, as required for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=188953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jerry-glenn-haffly-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respon-d37314","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36988:2022-08-22","opinionId":"855b46f0-898e-56f0-9fa2-7ecca9188042","slug":"cornell-anthony-cornelius-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d36988","caseName":"CORNELL ANTHONY CORNELIUS, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36988","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-08-22","year":2022,"display_summary":"Cornell Anthony Cornelius appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing the State breached its plea agreement by clarifying a 20-year minimum sentence and that his counsel was ineffective for not objecting. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment. It found the plea agreement's term \"something less\" to be ambiguous, permitting consideration of extrinsic evidence, and concluded Movant failed to prove either a breach of the agreement or ineffective assistance of counsel.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=188654","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cornell-anthony-cornelius-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d36988","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37279:2022-04-29","opinionId":"c034152e-31b2-5431-9dcb-2704d8f76d80","slug":"gabriel-a-pulliam-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d37279","caseName":"GABRIEL A. PULLIAM, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37279","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-04-29","year":2022,"display_summary":"Gabriel Pulliam appealed the dismissal of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which the motion court found untimely. Pulliam argued his motion should be treated as timely due to a mistaken belief that he needed to file a certified Department of Corrections (DOC) account statement and DOC's delay in providing it, which he contended constituted third-party interference. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Pulliam's mistaken belief and choice not to file did not fall within the narrow third-party interference exception to the mandatory filing deadline.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186553","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gabriel-a-pulliam-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d37279","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36990:2022-04-28","opinionId":"a193c857-2b35-5453-8d45-64e4fe0fe8c6","slug":"damien-t-bryan-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d36990","caseName":"DAMIEN T. BRYAN, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36990","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-04-28","year":2022,"display_summary":"Damien Bryan sought Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief after being convicted of felony DWI and two counts of second-degree murder following a fatal multi-vehicle collision. He alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel across seven points, including failure to call witnesses, object to testimony, challenge scientific evidence, cross-examine, present disability evidence, and conduct proper voir dire. The motion court denied relief, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no clear error in the motion court's findings and conclusions and no merit in any of Bryan's claims of ineffective assistance.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186496","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/damien-t-bryan-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d36990","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37194:2022-04-05","opinionId":"a24600bf-f8e9-5dc9-aeae-e50a88a0209e","slug":"michael-andrew-hurst-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-resp-d37194","caseName":"MICHAEL ANDREW HURST, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37194","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-04-05","year":2022,"display_summary":"Michael Andrew Hurst appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, claiming his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary due to a learning disability. The motion court found his plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the motion court did not clearly err in denying relief, as Movant's participation in the plea hearing and plea counsel's testimony supported the finding of competency.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185993","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-andrew-hurst-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-resp-d37194","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36948:2022-03-29","opinionId":"9cde9a1d-987c-5899-a7af-97367451480e","slug":"nick-e-johnson-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d36948","caseName":"NICK E. JOHNSON, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36948","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-03-29","year":2022,"display_summary":"Nick E. Johnson pleaded guilty to first-degree burglary in 2012 but was not sentenced until 2018. He appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing that the six-year delay in sentencing resulted in a de facto consecutive sentence, breaching his plea agreement, and that his plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, finding no clear error as Movant's claims did not challenge the knowing and voluntary nature of his plea at the time it was entered, but rather complained about unforeseeable future actions.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185833","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/nick-e-johnson-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d36948","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37074:2022-03-16","opinionId":"25663591-e552-5cbf-bae2-f1aa573a069b","slug":"wesley-hatmon-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d37074","caseName":"WESLEY HATMON, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37074","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-03-16","year":2022,"display_summary":"Wesley Hatmon appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing the motion court erred by finding no abandonment by counsel and ruling on the merits of an untimely amended motion. This was the second appeal in the proceeding, following a prior remand for an independent inquiry into abandonment. The appellate court vacated the motion court's order, holding that it clearly erred by conflating the abandonment analysis with the Strickland prejudice analysis, which led it to improperly rule on the merits of the untimely motion. The case was remanded for the motion court to properly determine abandonment and then adjudicate either the amended motion or the initial pro se motion accordingly.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185493","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/wesley-hatmon-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d37074","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36039:2021-12-01","opinionId":"a0b045ee-2c6f-5c8d-a615-27778cd9618b","slug":"vernon-earl-miller-movant-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-appel-d36039","caseName":"VERNON EARL MILLER, Movant-Respondent\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD36039","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-12-01","year":2021,"display_summary":"Vernon Earl Miller appealed the motion court's order granting his amended Rule 29.15 motion to vacate convictions for forcible rape, statutory sodomy, and statutory rape. The motion court found Miller's counsel ineffective for failing to object to certain testimony and failing to litigate a motion to exclude evidence. The appellate court reversed, concluding the motion court clearly erred because Miller failed to prove prejudice from counsel's actions. The case was remanded with directions to deny Miller's post-conviction motion.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182400","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/vernon-earl-miller-movant-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-appel-d36039","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36913:2021-11-23","opinionId":"277a71e1-2094-53b6-973f-f9a5dbb7e803","slug":"cory-d-jones-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d36913","caseName":"CORY D. JONES, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36913","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-11-23","year":2021,"display_summary":"Cory Jones appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion to set aside his first-degree murder conviction, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate his mental health history before his guilty plea. The motion court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing, finding no indication of mental instability and strategic reasons for the plea. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Jones failed to show a factual basis for a questionable mental condition that would have required counsel to investigate, thus not meeting the deficient performance prong of Strickland.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182245","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cory-d-jones-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d36913","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36905:2021-09-02","opinionId":"59449ceb-727a-5d67-8647-9b2b68e95709","slug":"shawn-henry-scrivens-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-resp-d36905","caseName":"SHAWN HENRY SCRIVENS, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36905","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-09-02","year":2021,"display_summary":"Shawn Henry Scrivens, who pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm, filed a Rule 24.035 motion alleging his plea was involuntary due to inadequate medical care in jail. The motion court denied his claim, finding his plea was knowing and voluntary. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the motion court's thorough inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea, where Scrivens confirmed he would still plead guilty even with adequate medical care, was not clearly erroneous.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=180193","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/shawn-henry-scrivens-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-resp-d36905","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36915:2021-09-01","opinionId":"48c7957e-4caf-55df-a6a2-1fda353b9497","slug":"brian-shawn-jones-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d36915","caseName":"BRIAN SHAWN JONES, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36915","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-09-01","year":2021,"display_summary":"Brian Jones appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, seeking to set aside his convictions for second-degree murder and armed criminal action. He alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel on three grounds: failure to call a neuropsychologist at trial and sentencing, and failure to object to the trial court's explanation for excusing a juror. The motion court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed, finding the motion court's decision was not clearly erroneous and that counsel's actions constituted sound trial strategy or did not result in prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=180114","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/brian-shawn-jones-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d36915","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36881:2021-08-30","opinionId":"fbd37b75-c3ec-528a-81c1-454db484916d","slug":"nathan-hilliard-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d36881","caseName":"NATHAN HILLIARD, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36881","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-08-30","year":2021,"display_summary":"Nathan Hilliard appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion, which claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. Hilliard argued that the trial court imposed a vindictive sentence, punishing him for exercising his right to a trial by sentencing him to a longer term after conviction than he had received in a prior plea agreement. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, holding that a claim of vindictive sentencing is generally considered trial court error and does not fall under the \"rare and exceptional circumstances\" required for such an error to be cognizable in a Rule 29.15 motion.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=180013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/nathan-hilliard-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d36881","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36873:2021-07-02","opinionId":"d6cf7e08-6859-5e28-b35f-de15222a6792","slug":"karl-david-lawrence-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-d36873","caseName":"KARL DAVID LAWRENCE, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36873","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-07-02","year":2021,"display_summary":"Karl David Lawrence appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, following his conviction for statutory sodomy. Lawrence claimed his trial counsel were constitutionally ineffective for failing to provide notice of an alibi defense and failing to call an additional alibi witness. The Southern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the motion court's denial, concluding that the issues of prejudice had been resolved on direct appeal and could not be relitigated under the higher Strickland standard for post-conviction relief.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=178504","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/karl-david-lawrence-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-d36873","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36762:2021-04-29","opinionId":"4a16626c-7767-50bb-8fcc-f38e3e1088ce","slug":"timothy-easley-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d36762","caseName":"TIMOTHY EASLEY, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36762","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-04-29","year":2021,"display_summary":"Timothy Easley appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion to set aside his conviction for first-degree assault, following a guilty plea. Easley argued that his guilty plea lacked a sufficient factual basis and that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him on the elements of first-degree assault. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, holding that the factual basis claim was not cognizable in a post-conviction proceeding and deferring to the motion court's credibility findings regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177116","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/timothy-easley-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d36762","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36568:2021-01-28","opinionId":"c17ce37a-f513-5418-b827-54e1cf7895cb","slug":"ronald-mclemore-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d36568","caseName":"RONALD MCLEMORE, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36568","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-01-28","year":2021,"display_summary":"Ronald McLemore filed a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The motion court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, making credibility findings regarding trial counsel's strategy based solely on the trial transcript. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the motion court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing when credibility findings were necessary and the record did not conclusively refute Movant's claims.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=172973","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ronald-mclemore-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d36568","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36501:2021-01-27","opinionId":"e90ee1e1-97bf-5781-8e55-ac3db2d3f71a","slug":"david-cole-nash-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d36501","caseName":"DAVID COLE NASH, Movant-Appellant\nv. \nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36501","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-01-27","year":2021,"display_summary":"David Cole Nash appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging the trial court's failure to sua sponte order a mental evaluation. Nash contended that a mental evaluation would have led to medication, preventing his removal from trial due to disruptive behavior. The appellate court affirmed the denial, concluding that the motion court's findings were not clearly erroneous and that the trial court had no reason to order a mental evaluation, as Nash's behavior appeared manipulative rather than incompetent.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=172933","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-cole-nash-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d36501","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36451:2020-10-29","opinionId":"4613934c-1e15-5340-8df8-359e12891956","slug":"billie-j-borschnack-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-d36451","caseName":"BILLIE J. BORSCHNACK, Movant-Appellant\nvs. \nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36451","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-10-29","year":2020,"display_summary":"Billie J. Borschnack appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing that appointed counsel abandoned him, which would make his retained counsel's subsequent amended motion timely. The motion court found no abandonment because the public defender's office was never effectively notified of the appointment. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, holding that without effective notice, there was no abandonment by appointed counsel, and thus the retained counsel's amended motion was untimely. Consequently, Borschnack's initial pro se motion, which contained only a conclusory allegation, was properly denied.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=168436","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/billie-j-borschnack-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-d36451","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36496:2020-10-26","opinionId":"992600ff-eb2b-5b3f-b9b3-590e897bda7d","slug":"marcus-l-johnson-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d36496","caseName":"MARCUS L. JOHNSON, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36496","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-10-26","year":2020,"display_summary":"Marcus L. Johnson appealed the denial of his post-conviction motion, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Johnson claimed his counsel was ineffective for advising him that his prior felony conviction would be revealed at trial, leading him to plead guilty, and for failing to present mental health mitigation evidence at sentencing. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding counsel was not ineffective on either ground.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=168173","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/marcus-l-johnson-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d36496","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36370:2020-09-24","opinionId":"7d0452ab-30b2-547b-a0de-5d68b37c1900","slug":"raymond-spencer-hood-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-resp-d36370","caseName":"RAYMOND SPENCER HOOD, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36370","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-09-24","year":2020,"display_summary":"Raymond Spencer Hood appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Hood claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to propensity evidence and for not advising him on the appellate standard of review after waiving a jury trial. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding no clear error and deferring to the motion court's credibility findings regarding counsel's advice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=166654","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/raymond-spencer-hood-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-resp-d36370","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36448:2020-08-21","opinionId":"72199f35-eee9-5f04-a401-dd6ebffc89f3","slug":"johnathan-j-young-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d36448","caseName":"JOHNATHAN J. YOUNG, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36448","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-08-21","year":2020,"display_summary":"Johnathan Young appealed the dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, which the motion court found untimely. Young argued his motion was timely because the 180-day filing period should have started when his probation was revoked and his sentence executed in 2015, not when he was initially delivered to the Department of Corrections (DOC) in 2012 for a drug treatment program as a condition of probation. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that delivery to DOC for an institutional drug treatment program, even as a condition of probation, triggers the 180-day time limit for filing a Rule 24.035 motion.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=164633","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/johnathan-j-young-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d36448","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36289:2020-07-29","opinionId":"32ee6b57-fc86-5991-80f9-c1523924d171","slug":"wesley-l-hatmon-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d36289","caseName":"WESLEY L. HATMON, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36289","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-07-29","year":2020,"display_summary":"Wesley L. Hatmon appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion, which was denied following an evidentiary hearing on an untimely amended motion. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, noting that both parties agreed the amended motion was untimely. The court held that an untimely amended motion by post-conviction counsel creates a presumption of abandonment, requiring the motion court to conduct an independent inquiry into whether the movant was actually abandoned.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=163333","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/wesley-l-hatmon-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d36289","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36139:2020-07-23","opinionId":"7742e33c-bdc4-5e5e-a174-e377da45307a","slug":"richard-d-mcnabb-ii-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-d36139","caseName":"RICHARD D. MCNABB, II, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36139","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-07-23","year":2020,"display_summary":"Richard McNabb, II appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion to set aside convictions for sexual exploitation of a minor and sexual misconduct involving a child. The motion court had treated his pro se motion as timely because he was not properly advised of his Rule 29.15 rights at sentencing. The appellate court vacated the motion court's order, holding that a sentencing court's failure to inform a defendant of filing deadlines does not excuse an untimely post-conviction motion. The case was remanded with directions to dismiss McNabb's motion as untimely.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=162793","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/richard-d-mcnabb-ii-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-d36139","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36237:2020-05-14","opinionId":"1e62705b-eebd-51e8-8098-c9292ed10878","slug":"randall-s-ludemann-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respon-d36237","caseName":"RANDALL S. LUDEMANN, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36237","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-05-14","year":2020,"display_summary":"Randall S. Ludemann, a felon, was found guilty of unlawfully possessing a derringer. After his direct appeal was affirmed, he filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief, which was subsequently amended by appointed counsel. Ludemann appealed the denial of his amended motion, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to evidence of a traffic violation and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to challenge the admission of unrelated ammunition evidence. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding no clear error in its conclusions that counsel was not ineffective.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=157133","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/randall-s-ludemann-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respon-d36237","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35979:2020-02-07","opinionId":"bb8d184c-82a9-5718-b5fa-057dd5ed389d","slug":"kimberly-k-cook-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d35979","caseName":"KIMBERLY K. COOK, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35979","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-02-07","year":2020,"display_summary":"Kimberly K. Cook appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, seeking to set aside convictions for robbery and armed criminal action. He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations and due to a conflict of interest. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's decision, finding that Cook failed to prove his attorneys were ineffective or that any conflict of interest adversely affected his case.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=150093","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kimberly-k-cook-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d35979","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35983:2020-01-31","opinionId":"cada9691-b885-505b-9f11-c4f86bc0313b","slug":"thomas-stanley-skinner-ii-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d35983","caseName":"THOMAS STANLEY SKINNER II, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35983","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-01-31","year":2020,"display_summary":"Thomas Stanley Skinner II appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. Skinner, who pled guilty to statutory rape and sodomy, claimed his plea counsel was ineffective for allegedly guaranteeing that evidence of a second victim would not be presented at his sentencing hearing. The motion court found no prejudice, concluding the evidence would likely be admissible and Skinner failed to show he would have insisted on going to trial. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding no error in its determination that Skinner was not prejudiced by any purported misadvice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=149698","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/thomas-stanley-skinner-ii-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d35983","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35946:2020-01-14","opinionId":"614e100d-dcd6-556e-8315-de71cf76c943","slug":"robert-l-campbell-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d35946","caseName":"ROBERT L. CAMPBELL, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35946","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-01-14","year":2020,"display_summary":"Robert L. Campbell appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for requesting and submitting lesser-included offense instructions for second-degree murder. Campbell, who was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder, claimed this strategy was not informed and prejudiced him. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, concluding that trial counsel's decision to offer lesser-included instructions was a reasonable trial strategy to avoid a first-degree murder conviction, which carried a mandatory life sentence without parole.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=148554","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-l-campbell-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d35946","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd33564:2019-12-10","opinionId":"dd57b966-8ed1-545f-a9c9-de79d64bf536","slug":"cebron-cordell-finley-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-res-d33564","caseName":"CEBRON CORDELL FINLEY, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD33564","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-12-10","year":2019,"display_summary":"Movant Cebron Cordell Finley filed a motion to recall mandate in his post-conviction relief case, asserting that a newly discovered letter from trial counsel contradicted counsel's testimony at the evidentiary hearing. The letter indicated a 15-year plea offer and counsel's belief that the evidence only supported a lesser charge, which was contrary to counsel's prior testimony. The appellate court recalled its mandate, vacated its previous summary order and the motion court's judgment denying post-conviction relief. The case was remanded to the motion court with directions to reopen the evidentiary hearing to consider the newly available corroborating evidence.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=147194","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cebron-cordell-finley-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-res-d33564","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35959:2019-11-21","opinionId":"35444e9c-0e1e-5422-93b6-c636d91ca0ea","slug":"harold-r-states-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d35959","caseName":"HAROLD R. STATES, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35959","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-11-21","year":2019,"display_summary":"Harold R. States appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. He argued that the motion court erred by not conducting an abandonment inquiry, claiming his appointed counsel abandoned him by raising a claim of insufficient evidence that had already been denied on direct appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that raising a previously denied claim does not constitute abandonment under the limited circumstances recognized by Missouri law.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=146653","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/harold-r-states-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d35959","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35940:2019-09-25","opinionId":"c5ecab2d-1d92-5517-92b8-d426564e4e8f","slug":"colby-dean-durst-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d35940","caseName":"COLBY DEAN DURST, Movant-Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35940","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-09-25","year":2019,"display_summary":"Colby Dean Durst appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel. Durst claimed his counsel failed to inform him of the prosecutor's doubts about victim credibility, which would have led him to go to trial instead of pleading guilty. The motion court found Movant's testimony not credible and counsel's performance effective. The appellate court affirmed, holding that it must defer to the motion court's credibility determinations, even when based on deposition testimony.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=144674","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/colby-dean-durst-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d35940","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36003:2019-09-11","opinionId":"ff9a5a71-bcce-557b-a6a5-e9e4fc296745","slug":"cornelius-junior-harris-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-r-d36003","caseName":"CORNELIUS JUNIOR HARRIS, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36003","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-09-11","year":2019,"display_summary":"Cornelius Junior Harris appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. The motion court denied the motion without conducting an abandonment inquiry, despite the amended motion being filed one day late. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the untimely filing created a presumption of abandonment by appointed counsel, which required the motion court to conduct an independent inquiry.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=144254","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cornelius-junior-harris-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-r-d36003","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35831:2019-09-05","opinionId":"07769d2f-5259-5d22-a9c3-467440f52d49","slug":"joseph-willie-proby-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-d35831","caseName":"JOSEPH WILLIE PROBY, Movant-Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35831","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-09-05","year":2019,"display_summary":"Joseph Willie Proby appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Proby claimed his appellate counsel failed to argue that his prior uncounseled state misdemeanor stealing pleas could not be used to enhance his current stealing charges to felonies under section 570.040. The motion court denied relief, finding the statute's plain meaning allowed the enhancement and counsel was not ineffective. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the statutory interpretation claim was not meritorious and was unpreserved for direct appeal, thus appellate counsel was not ineffective.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=144133","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joseph-willie-proby-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-d35831","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35719:2019-09-03","opinionId":"45cb4eb7-40a7-5340-ae5f-2aedcace98ad","slug":"harry-l-brooke-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d35719","caseName":"HARRY L. BROOKE, Movant-Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35719","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-09-03","year":2019,"display_summary":"Harry L. Brooke was charged with unlawful use of a weapon, a Class B felony carrying a mandatory fifteen-year sentence. He rejected a plea offer for a lesser charge and four years' imprisonment, instead entering an open guilty plea to the original charge, hoping for probation. The trial court sentenced him to fifteen years and denied probation. Brooke sought post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for misadvising him about the mandatory sentence. The motion court denied relief, finding Brooke's testimony not credible and that he was not prejudiced, as he rejected the plea offer to pursue probation, not a lower sentence. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=143995","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/harry-l-brooke-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d35719","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35776:2019-07-18","opinionId":"f43a3eab-ddfb-55ee-883b-caa660400977","slug":"william-scott-sours-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-d35776","caseName":"WILLIAM SCOTT SOURS, Movant-Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35776","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-07-18","year":2019,"display_summary":"William Scott Sours appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion to set aside his conviction for receiving stolen property. Sours argued that his appointed post-conviction counsel abandoned him by improperly incorporating his pro se motion and that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the amended information. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding no clear error. It concluded that Sours invited the error regarding the amended motion and that appellate counsel made a strategic choice not to raise the information issue.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=142493","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/william-scott-sours-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-d35776","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35635:2019-05-24","opinionId":"6b459f12-3d38-55d8-b265-da339f6299aa","slug":"ryan-n-evans-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d35635","caseName":"RYAN N. EVANS, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35635","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-05-24","year":2019,"display_summary":"Ryan Evans appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion to set aside convictions for child abuse and felony murder, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Evans argued his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to an autopsy doctor's testimony, alleging the doctor was statutorily unqualified. The motion court denied relief, finding counsel's decision was reasonable trial strategy and the objection would have been non-meritorious. The appellate court affirmed, concluding the motion court's decision was not clearly erroneous.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=140713","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ryan-n-evans-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d35635","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"medical-malpractice","label":"Medical Malpractice","href":"/practice-areas/medical-malpractice","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/medical-malpractice"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35627:2019-05-21","opinionId":"fa2e253e-d185-594e-9a99-8d9c57d45552","slug":"jason-michael-jones-aka-jason-michael-hilburn-movant-appellant-v-state-of-d35627","caseName":"JASON MICHAEL JONES, a/k/a/ JASON MICHAEL HILBURN, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35627","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-05-21","year":2019,"display_summary":"Jason Michael Jones appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Jones raised claims on appeal regarding ineffective assistance of trial counsel and the State withholding evidence, which were more specific than the generic claims presented in his amended motion. The Southern District of Missouri affirmed the motion court's denial, holding that claims not raised in the post-conviction motion are waived and cannot be reviewed on appeal.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=140634","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jason-michael-jones-aka-jason-michael-hilburn-movant-appellant-v-state-of-d35627","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35430:2019-05-21","opinionId":"b4de97e6-aa34-5e07-be75-02ade35998ad","slug":"dale-frazier-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d35430","caseName":"DALE FRAZIER, Movant-Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, \tRespondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35430","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-05-21","year":2019,"display_summary":"Dale Frazier appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion, seeking to set aside his two convictions for statutory sodomy in the second degree, which he entered via an Alford plea. He argued his sentence was illegal because parole was conditioned on admitting guilt, and that his plea counsel was ineffective for advising the Alford plea given this condition. The motion court denied relief, finding Frazier was adequately advised and failed to demonstrate prejudice. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, concluding there is no constitutional right to parole and Frazier did not prove ineffective assistance of counsel.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=140635","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dale-frazier-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d35430","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35502:2019-05-01","opinionId":"927fa910-2c3e-5596-9db4-03f6d1062c50","slug":"andy-joe-altic-jr-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d35502","caseName":"ANDY JOE ALTIC, JR., Movant-Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35502","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-05-01","year":2019,"display_summary":"Movant Andy Joe Altic, Jr. appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Altic claimed his counsel erroneously advised him to reject a plea offer, leading to a longer sentence after his conviction for stealing a motor vehicle. The motion court found Altic's testimony not credible and trial counsel's testimony credible. The appellate court affirmed, finding no clear error in the motion court's determination that counsel was not deficient.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=139934","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/andy-joe-altic-jr-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d35502","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35458:2019-04-17","opinionId":"1298443f-51a2-54f6-9064-f5198e4c627b","slug":"james-l-jarrett-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d35458","caseName":"JAMES L. JARRETT, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35458","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-04-17","year":2019,"display_summary":"James Jarrett appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, seeking to set aside convictions for forcible rape and statutory sodomy. He alleged ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel on several grounds, including failure to call a witness, failure to object to certain testimony, and failure to object to verdict-directing instructions. The motion court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed, finding the motion court's decision was not clearly erroneous and that counsel's actions constituted reasonable trial or appellate strategy.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=139353","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-l-jarrett-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d35458","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35230:2019-04-02","opinionId":"9240c913-6e4f-5fb9-869c-c654d40c2ed6","slug":"james-w-wiklund-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d35230","caseName":"JAMES W. WIKLUND, Movant-Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35230","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-04-02","year":2019,"display_summary":"James W. Wiklund appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations. Wiklund claimed his trial counsel failed to timely convey a plea offer, leading to its rescission. The motion court denied relief, finding Wiklund failed to show prejudice under the Strickland test. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the motion court's decision was not clearly erroneous because Wiklund did not demonstrate a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome, considering the State's ability to withdraw the offer and the trial court's sentencing discretion.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=138634","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-w-wiklund-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d35230","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35473:2019-03-15","opinionId":"d770f67e-556f-5c0b-8c87-b7550821e8ef","slug":"william-e-copher-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d35473","caseName":"WILLIAM E. COPHER, Movant-Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35473","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-03-15","year":2019,"display_summary":"William E. Copher appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Copher claimed his counsel was ineffective for advising him not to testify in his own defense during his criminal trial. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, concluding that trial counsel's advice was reasonable trial strategy and Copher failed to prove prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=138118","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/william-e-copher-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d35473","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35659:2019-02-20","opinionId":"e22f688e-351c-5370-a6a5-48ab2b9b9d85","slug":"billie-joe-borschnack-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-res-d35659","caseName":"BILLIE JOE BORSCHNACK, Movant-Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35659","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-02-20","year":2019,"display_summary":"Billie Joe Borschnack appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief, which the motion court found untimely. The motion court had also determined that appointed counsel abandoned Movant. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, holding that the record was insufficient to allow for appellate review of the motion court's abandonment determination, which is necessary to assess the timeliness of the amended motion.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=137077","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/billie-joe-borschnack-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-res-d35659","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35503:2019-02-20","opinionId":"a0bf96ed-406e-5a32-bf9b-42e7b7e10e62","slug":"christopher-allen-borneman-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-responden-d35503","caseName":"CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BORNEMAN, Movant-Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35503","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-02-20","year":2019,"display_summary":"Christopher Allen Borneman pleaded guilty to passing a bad check and received a seven-year prison sentence along with an order to pay restitution. He filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing the plea court lacked authority under section 557.011 to impose both incarceration and restitution. The motion court denied relief. On appeal, the Southern District affirmed, holding that Borneman waived his claim by knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entering into the plea agreement and that any error was self-invited.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=137079","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-allen-borneman-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-responden-d35503","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35622:2019-02-13","opinionId":"8f1fa259-7d46-5204-9968-6aafb0b669b8","slug":"steven-j-maples-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d35622","caseName":"STEVEN J. MAPLES, Movant-Appellant\nv\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35622","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-02-13","year":2019,"display_summary":"Steven J. Maples appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion to vacate his guilty plea for domestic assault. Maples claimed his trial counsel promised him a 120-day shock treatment or long-term treatment with possible probation, which induced his plea. The motion court found Maples's claim not credible and counsel's testimony credible. The appellate court affirmed, deferring to the motion court's superior opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=136853","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/steven-j-maples-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d35622","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35358:2019-01-16","opinionId":"abb8d507-9e32-5c1b-a292-50f90d00f979","slug":"damien-michael-barajas-movant-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-a-d35358","caseName":"DAMIEN MICHAEL BARAJAS, Movant-Respondent\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD35358","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-01-16","year":2019,"display_summary":"Damien Michael Barajas filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, which the motion court granted based on a finding that plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by erroneously stating a program completion date. The State appealed, arguing the claim was waived because it was not raised in Barajas's PCR motion. The appellate court reversed, holding that the motion court clearly erred by granting relief on a claim not presented in the movant's post-conviction motion, as such claims are waived.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=135753","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/damien-michael-barajas-movant-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-a-d35358","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35341:2018-12-21","opinionId":"1d31cfad-0e32-5822-b30f-6372e6238365","slug":"christopher-p-amsden-movent-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-resp-d35341","caseName":"CHRISTOPHER P. AMSDEN, Movent-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35341","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-12-21","year":2018,"display_summary":"Christopher Amsden, who pled guilty to felony stealing, sought post-conviction relief after the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in State v. Bazell held that the stealing statute did not permit felony enhancement. The motion court initially granted relief but later, after the Supreme Court clarified Bazell's retroactivity in State ex rel. Windeknecht v. Mesmer, denied Amsden's motion. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the motion court properly exercised its authority to reconsider its initial ruling and that Bazell did not apply retroactively to Amsden's post-conviction case.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=134973","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-p-amsden-movent-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-resp-d35341","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35241:2018-12-19","opinionId":"705bb009-3ade-56b0-aba1-ba0c954d3f22","slug":"joshua-david-musgrove-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-res-d35241","caseName":"JOSHUA DAVID MUSGROVE, Movant-Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35241","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-12-19","year":2018,"display_summary":"Joshua David Musgrove appealed the motion court's dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Musgrove argued the escape rule should not apply to him because his escape did not adversely affect the criminal justice system, as he was recaptured four days later. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Musgrove's escape did adversely affect the criminal justice system, thereby properly invoking the escape rule.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=134693","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joshua-david-musgrove-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-res-d35241","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35441:2018-12-04","opinionId":"6bbbffbf-9ca2-5921-8caf-d5b7ff2991a3","slug":"kevin-mason-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d35441","caseName":"KEVIN MASON, Movant-Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35441","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-12-04","year":2018,"display_summary":"Kevin Mason appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Mason argued his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the constitutionality of Missouri's sex offender registration statute, citing the U.S. Supreme Court case Packingham v. North Carolina. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding Packingham factually distinguishable and inapplicable to the Missouri statute, and therefore, counsel was not ineffective for failing to predict a future ruling.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=134133","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kevin-mason-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d35441","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35334:2018-11-27","opinionId":"8d44f891-37fc-571b-980d-5625851f85aa","slug":"donnie-wayne-hounihan-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-res-d35334","caseName":"DONNIE WAYNE HOUNIHAN, Movant-Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35334","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-11-27","year":2018,"display_summary":"Donnie Wayne Hounihan appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel. He claimed trial counsel failed to call a physician witness and appellate counsel failed to challenge an improper felony enhancement of his driving with a revoked license conviction. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the claim against trial counsel, finding no prejudice. However, it reversed and remanded the claim against appellate counsel for the motion court to make findings on whether counsel's failure to raise the enhancement issue was an objectively reasonable legal strategy.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=133773","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/donnie-wayne-hounihan-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-res-d35334","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35399:2018-11-08","opinionId":"c7ae35b9-6b4c-5f74-9dbe-9be063e0dda0","slug":"james-a-valley-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d35399","caseName":"JAMES A. VALLEY, Movant-Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35399","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-11-08","year":2018,"display_summary":"James A. Valley appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Valley had pled guilty to felony stealing and received a five-year sentence. He argued that a subsequent Supreme Court decision, State v. Bazell, reclassified his offense as a misdemeanor, making his sentence unlawful. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, holding that Bazell's prospective application rule meant it did not apply to post-conviction relief motions.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=133093","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-a-valley-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d35399","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35453:2018-10-24","opinionId":"7d3f1184-6751-53a2-b766-de6a78f04b0b","slug":"tiffany-dawn-harris-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-d35453","caseName":"TIFFANY DAWN HARRIS, Movant-Appellant,\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.","caseNumber":"SD35453","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-10-24","year":2018,"display_summary":"Tiffany Harris pled guilty to felony stealing and received a five-year sentence before the Missouri Supreme Court decided State v. Bazell, which held that stealing could not be enhanced to a felony. Harris sought post-conviction relief, arguing her sentence exceeded the maximum allowed by law based on Bazell. The motion court denied relief, finding Bazell was not retroactive. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Bazell's ruling applies only prospectively, except for cases pending on direct appeal, and Harris's case was not pending on direct appeal when Bazell was decided.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=132573","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tiffany-dawn-harris-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-d35453","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35397:2018-10-15","opinionId":"85dbab3b-e362-5dc3-809b-23baf06026d5","slug":"reggie-oliphant-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d35397","caseName":"REGGIE OLIPHANT, Movant-Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35397","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-10-15","year":2018,"display_summary":"Reggie Oliphant appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion to set aside convictions for controlled substance offenses and public nuisance. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case. The court found that the motion court failed to conduct the required Moore abandonment inquiry after appointed counsel filed an untimely amended motion, which is a procedural error requiring resolution.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=132096","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/reggie-oliphant-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d35397","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35276:2018-09-17","opinionId":"9d0a5559-21da-5d3e-a724-45b863f08479","slug":"gathol-marcus-may-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d35276","caseName":"GATHOL MARCUS MAY, Movant-Appellant,\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.","caseNumber":"SD35276","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-09-17","year":2018,"display_summary":"Gathol Marcus May appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his plea counsel was ineffective for misadvising him about his potential sentence for felony forgery and stealing. May claimed that counsel should have anticipated the holding in State v. Bazell, which was decided after his sentencing and would have reduced his maximum exposure. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding no clear error in the motion court's determination that counsel's advice was proper based on the law at the time of the plea, as Bazell does not apply retroactively to May's case.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=130773","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gathol-marcus-may-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d35276","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35000:2018-08-21","opinionId":"6c5962ca-f530-5dd4-ac16-201f89bf3b61","slug":"joseph-v-williams-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d35000","caseName":"JOSEPH V. WILLIAMS, Movant-Appellant,\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.","caseNumber":"SD35000","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-08-21","year":2018,"display_summary":"Joseph V. Williams, serving a lengthy sentence, appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. He claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to his appearance in jail clothing during his trial for assaulting a DOC employee. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's decision, finding that counsel's choice not to object was a reasonable trial strategy to elicit jury sympathy or nullification, especially given Williams's admission of the crime and his existing long sentence.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=129553","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joseph-v-williams-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d35000","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35138:2018-08-10","opinionId":"64ecd8be-c1af-56a9-adb3-4e1cd09e03b2","slug":"robert-h-steele-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d35138","caseName":"ROBERT H. STEELE, Movant-Appellant,\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.","caseNumber":"SD35138","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-08-10","year":2018,"display_summary":"Robert Steele appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 amended motion for post-conviction relief. The motion court had found that Steele's retained counsel abandoned him and granted an extension, leading to a second retained counsel filing an amended motion. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the abandonment doctrine does not apply to retained counsel, making the amended motion untimely. Furthermore, the motion court's order was not a final judgment because it failed to adjudicate all claims from Steele's last timely filed pro se motion.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=129063","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-h-steele-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d35138","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35088:2018-07-13","opinionId":"7ab0b829-b49a-52a1-bf77-676a50e48db4","slug":"david-andrew-borneman-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-res-d35088","caseName":"DAVID ANDREW BORNEMAN, Movant-Appellant,\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.","caseNumber":"SD35088","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-07-13","year":2018,"display_summary":"David Andrew Borneman appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. He claimed ineffective assistance of plea counsel for erroneously advising him he would receive probation, and that the motion court erred by denying an oral motion to supplement his claim with an argument that his sentence exceeded the legal maximum. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, finding no clear error in its credibility determination regarding counsel's advice and concluding that the attempt to add the sentence claim was time-barred.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","other","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=128113","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-andrew-borneman-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-res-d35088","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35080:2018-06-29","opinionId":"9cf0ae6a-1931-5644-98f8-8b6219f15dd3","slug":"felix-mcgrundy-seals-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-resp-d35080","caseName":"FELIX MCGRUNDY SEALS, Movant-Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35080","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-06-29","year":2018,"display_summary":"Felix McGrundy Seals appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The motion court denied all claims after an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the claims regarding trial counsel's performance during voir dire. However, the court reversed the denial of the claim for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, finding that counsel unreasonably failed to seek reversal of the victim tampering conviction (Count 3) when the predicate domestic assault conviction (Count 1) was reversed on direct appeal. The case was remanded for a new trial on Count 3.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=127193","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/felix-mcgrundy-seals-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-resp-d35080","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35017:2018-06-26","opinionId":"937611a9-1c48-5c09-adfe-d8924f0fe076","slug":"ramone-j-hicks-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d35017","caseName":"RAMONE J. HICKS, Movant-Appellant,\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.","caseNumber":"SD35017","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-06-26","year":2018,"display_summary":"Ramone J. Hicks appealed the denial of his amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which sought to set aside his convictions for first-degree robbery, first-degree burglary, and armed criminal action. Hicks alleged, among other claims, a Brady violation and ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion court's judgment failed to rule on all claims presented in the amended motion, specifically the \"venire claim,\" thus lacking a final, appealable judgment.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=127073","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ramone-j-hicks-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d35017","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd34992:2018-06-07","opinionId":"1d109aec-bb85-544b-b5ff-59a031ae9ef1","slug":"brandon-w-stark-movant-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-appellan-d34992","caseName":"BRANDON W. STARK, Movant-Respondent,\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Appellant.","caseNumber":"SD34992","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-06-07","year":2018,"display_summary":"Brandon W. Stark filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after pleading guilty to multiple charges, including felonies and misdemeanors, and receiving consecutive sentences. The motion court granted relief, finding his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary due to an involuntary waiver of counsel. On appeal, the State challenged the motion court's findings and its authority to grant relief for misdemeanors. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, concluding that Stark's waiver of counsel was involuntary and the State's challenge to the misdemeanor relief was unpreserved.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=126254","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/brandon-w-stark-movant-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-appellan-d34992","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35213:2018-05-17","opinionId":"a3abb6d9-074a-5faa-9ee9-36660efb64ce","slug":"corey-lee-abrams-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d35213","caseName":"COREY LEE ABRAMS, Movant-Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35213","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-05-17","year":2018,"display_summary":"Corey Lee Abrams appealed the motion court's denial of his amended Rule 24.035 motion, in which he sought to amend his felony conviction and sentence for stealing a firearm to a misdemeanor, citing State v. Bazell. The motion court denied the request, finding Bazell did not apply retroactively to his case. The Southern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Missouri Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that Bazell only applies prospectively and to cases pending on direct appeal, not to post-conviction motions.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=125633","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/corey-lee-abrams-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d35213","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35134:2018-05-15","opinionId":"db3d5ea9-3a8e-5ccc-9e93-1c0c5985aa9f","slug":"joshua-daniel-hewitt-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-resp-d35134","caseName":"JOSHUA DANIEL HEWITT, Movant-Appellant,\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.","caseNumber":"SD35134","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-05-15","year":2018,"display_summary":"Joshua Daniel Hewitt appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion to set aside convictions. The appellate court previously reversed and remanded the case, directing the motion court to conduct an abandonment inquiry and, if abandonment was found, to appoint new counsel and allow time for an amended motion. The motion court found abandonment but failed to appoint new counsel, instead reissuing its prior judgment. The appellate court reversed and remanded again, directing the motion court to specifically appoint new counsel and allow 60 days for filing an amended motion.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=125533","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joshua-daniel-hewitt-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-resp-d35134","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35010:2018-04-26","opinionId":"d7e7a4da-1506-5e7f-9370-0249f9cdb200","slug":"jillian-m-cannady-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d35010","caseName":"JILLIAN M. CANNADY, Movant-Appellant,\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.","caseNumber":"SD35010","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-04-26","year":2018,"display_summary":"Jillian M. Cannady appealed the denial of her Rule 29.15 motion to set aside her first-degree assault conviction. She argued that her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to consistently object to hearsay testimony, causing prejudice. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, finding that its conclusion of no prejudice was not clearly erroneous. The court determined that the evidence of Cannady's guilt was overwhelming, and any challenged hearsay statements were cumulative, thus not undermining confidence in the outcome.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=125153","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jillian-m-cannady-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d35010","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd34939:2018-04-18","opinionId":"72c47fd5-7c1a-547c-a69d-36c343fb1d72","slug":"melvin-green-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d34939","caseName":"MELVIN GREEN, Movant-Appellant,\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.","caseNumber":"SD34939","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-04-18","year":2018,"display_summary":"Melvin Green appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion to set aside convictions for attempted forcible rape, forcible sodomy, and first-degree robbery. Green argued the motion court clearly erred by finding his testimony regarding prejudice from ineffective assistance of counsel not credible. The appellate court affirmed, holding that it defers to the motion court's superior opportunity to judge witness credibility and found no clear error in its determination.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=124800","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/melvin-green-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d34939","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd34987:2018-03-29","opinionId":"bd4fd14e-4309-5b28-b995-d81c0c7bddfa","slug":"christopher-g-yaeger-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-resp-d34987","caseName":"CHRISTOPHER G. YAEGER, Movant-Appellant,\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.","caseNumber":"SD34987","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-03-29","year":2018,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=124236","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-g-yaeger-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-resp-d34987","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd34908:2018-03-28","opinionId":"a2ab42d9-b47f-5d44-ac16-f986407f2529","slug":"casey-a-spicher-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d34908","caseName":"CASEY A. SPICHER, Movant-Appellant,\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.","caseNumber":"SD34908","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-03-28","year":2018,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=124216","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/casey-a-spicher-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d34908","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35133:2018-03-16","opinionId":"45c682c9-52b8-5fd6-9993-d5918cf0f1ad","slug":"richard-s-mercer-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d35133","caseName":"RICHARD S. MERCER, Movant-Appellant,\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.","caseNumber":"SD35133","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-03-16","year":2018,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=123841","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/richard-s-mercer-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d35133","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd34902:2018-02-08","opinionId":"5dd73eb9-da77-5c64-8436-6ed8388a2893","slug":"james-c-duke-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d34902","caseName":"JAMES C. DUKE, Movant-Appellant,\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.","caseNumber":"SD34902","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-02-08","year":2018,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=122653","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-c-duke-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d34902","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd34805:2018-01-31","opinionId":"5bc0ae3b-f938-52f9-85f3-b35327cececd","slug":"steven-henderson-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d34805","caseName":"STEVEN HENDERSON, Movant-Appellant,\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.","caseNumber":"SD34805","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-01-31","year":2018,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=122274","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/steven-henderson-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d34805","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd34842:2018-01-26","opinionId":"a0a20e5c-758e-5578-bbaa-f9c811146673","slug":"damien-todd-bryan-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d34842","caseName":"DAMIEN TODD BRYAN, Movant-Appellant,\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.","caseNumber":"SD34842","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-01-26","year":2018,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=122145","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/damien-todd-bryan-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d34842","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"}]}