St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Case Authority

state v driskill 459 sw3d 412

This authority appears in 48 citation records in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive.

Canonical ID
case:state-v-driskill-459-sw3d-412
Citation Sample
State v. Driskill, 459 S.W.3d 412
Cases Shown
48
Archive note: 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to cases citing this authority

These links route legal-research traffic from this authority profile into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the authority itself or the cited cases map to a practical client issue.

Criminal LawCivil LitigationPersonal InjuryCorporate LawFamily Law

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help with an issue tied to state v driskill 459 sw3d 412?

This authority profile is public case-law research. If the authority connects to your claim or dispute, Ott Law Firm can help evaluate evidence, deadlines, and next steps.

Free ConsultationCall Ott Law Firm

Citation Treatment

cited

47

distinguished

1

Cases Citing state v driskill 459 sw3d 412

Showing up to 50 opinion records linked to this authority.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Feb 10, 2026

Derrie S. Williams, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

cited

Citation: State v. Driskill, 459 S.W.3d 412

Appellant Derrie Williams appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion, arguing he was denied effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to allow him to testify and failed to investigate and call two witnesses. The court affirmed the motion court's judgment denying post-conviction relief, finding that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were not clearly erroneous.

Criminal LawCivil Litigation