Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Candice R. Gillam 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
candice-r-gillam
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Candice R. Gillam

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Feb 15, 2022

Candice R. Gillam, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Appellant

Candice R. Gillam appealed the denial of her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing her convictions for possession of a controlled substance and first-degree endangering the welfare of a child violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. She contended that possession was a lesser-included offense of child endangerment. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, concluding that under the "same elements test," the two offenses are not lesser-included and therefore do not constitute multiple punishments for the same offense.