Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

CHESTER WILLIAM FEWINS, Defendant- 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
chester-william-fewins-defendant
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 CHESTER WILLIAM FEWINS, Defendant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Aug 31, 2021

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. CHESTER WILLIAM FEWINS, Defendant-Appellant

Appellant

Chester William Fewins appealed his bench-trial convictions for multiple sexual offenses and child abuse. He argued the trial court erred by denying a continuance and that the written judgment contained clerical errors regarding his sentences. The appellate court affirmed Fewins's convictions, finding no adverse ruling on the continuance request as it was granted. However, the court agreed that the written judgment's 99-year sentences materially differed from the oral pronouncement of life sentences and remanded the case for correction of the judgment.