Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Antonio D. Jones 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
antonio-d-jones
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Antonio D. Jones

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 22, 2020

Antonio D. Jones, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Appellant

Antonio Jones appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Jones argued his 15-year sentence as a prior and persistent offender exceeded the maximum authorized by law due to insufficient proof of prior felonies, and that his plea counsel was ineffective for admitting prior convictions without his consent. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Jones waived objections to the sufficiency of proof by his and his counsel's admissions, and that the record refuted his claim of ineffective assistance as he had expressed satisfaction with counsel.