Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

CONNIE SANDERS-FORD 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
connie-sandersford
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 CONNIE SANDERS-FORD

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Apr 8, 2020

CONNIE SANDERS-FORD, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent

Appellant

Connie Sanders-Ford, convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action, appealed the denial of her Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. She claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for rejecting a plea offer due to misadvice about parole eligibility under Section 558.019.3 RSMo. The motion court denied relief, finding she failed to prove prejudice because the prosecutor would have withdrawn the plea offer if the mistake had been discovered. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that Movant's argument relied on speculation and failed to demonstrate clear error in the motion court's finding.