Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Cruz Howell 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
cruz-howell
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Cruz Howell

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jun 8, 2021

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Cruz Howell, Appellant.

Appellant

Cruz Howell appealed his convictions for three counts of second-degree domestic assault, arguing the trial court erred by denying his request for counsel after trial began and by denying his motions to dismiss for speedy-trial violations. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It held that the trial court did not plainly err in denying Howell's last-minute request for counsel, as it would have required a continuance despite his prior valid waiver. The court also found no plain error in denying the speedy-trial motions, concluding Howell failed to prove actual prejudice from the delay.