Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

DAVID ANDREW BORNEMAN, 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
david-andrew-borneman-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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 DAVID ANDREW BORNEMAN, Movant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Jul 13, 2018

DAVID ANDREW BORNEMAN, Movant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.

Appellant

David Andrew Borneman appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. He claimed ineffective assistance of plea counsel for erroneously advising him he would receive probation, and that the motion court erred by denying an oral motion to supplement his claim with an argument that his sentence exceeded the legal maximum. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, finding no clear error in its credibility determination regarding counsel's advice and concluding that the attempt to add the sentence claim was time-barred.