Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

ANGALINE RYAN Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
angaline-ryan
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Criminal Law
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving ANGALINE RYAN

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Feb 27, 2023

ANGALINE RYAN, Appellant vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent

Appellant

Angaline Ryan appealed the denial of her Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present DNA evidence and a clerical error in her sentence. The motion court found counsel's decision was reasonable trial strategy and the DNA evidence speculative. The appellate court affirmed, holding that counsel's strategic decision was not deficient performance and the movant failed to show prejudice. The court also found the clerical error claim waived because it was not raised in the PCR motion.