Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Anthony L. Sinks 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
anthony-l-sinks
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Anthony L. Sinks

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Sep 3, 2024

Anthony L. Sinks, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Appellant

Anthony Sinks, convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action, sought post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15, alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Sinks claimed counsel was ineffective for not asserting a speedy trial violation, for advising him to waive a jury trial, and for failing to pursue a plea agreement. The motion court denied his claims without an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, finding no clear error in its conclusions that counsel's performance was not deficient and Sinks suffered no prejudice.