Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Daniell W. Bibbs 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
daniell-w-bibbs
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Daniell W. Bibbs

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Mar 10, 2020

Daniell W. Bibbs, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Appellant

Daniell Bibbs appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his guilty pleas were involuntary and unknowing, and that his plea counsel was ineffective. The motion court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding the record refuted Bibbs' claims regarding the voluntariness and factual basis of his pleas. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the motion court did not clearly err in finding the pleas were knowingly and voluntarily entered with sufficient factual bases, and that counsel was not ineffective.