Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Bradley r. Weinert 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
bradley-r-weinert
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Bradley r. Weinert

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jan 21, 2020

Bradley r. Weinert, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Appellant

Bradley Weinert appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the authentication of DWITS records used to classify him as a "chronic offender." The motion court denied relief, finding counsel's decision was reasonable given the state of the law at the time. The Eastern District affirmed, concluding that Weinert failed to show the DWITS claim was so obvious that a reasonably competent attorney would have asserted it on direct appeal, especially since no appellate court had yet clarified the interpretation of Section 577.023.16.