Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

CEBRON CORDELL FINLEY, Movant- 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
cebron-cordell-finley-movant
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 CEBRON CORDELL FINLEY, Movant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Dec 10, 2019

CEBRON CORDELL FINLEY, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent

Appellant

Movant Cebron Cordell Finley filed a motion to recall mandate in his post-conviction relief case, asserting that a newly discovered letter from trial counsel contradicted counsel's testimony at the evidentiary hearing. The letter indicated a 15-year plea offer and counsel's belief that the evidence only supported a lesser charge, which was contrary to counsel's prior testimony. The appellate court recalled its mandate, vacated its previous summary order and the motion court's judgment denying post-conviction relief. The case was remanded to the motion court with directions to reopen the evidentiary hearing to consider the newly available corroborating evidence.