Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

DAVID MICHAEL KING, 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
david-michael-king-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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 DAVID MICHAEL KING, Defendant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Mar 22, 2023

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. DAVID MICHAEL KING, Defendant-Appellant

Appellant

David Michael King was found guilty after a bench trial of multiple counts of statutory sodomy and child molestation. On appeal, King argued the trial court erred by denying his request for a continuance of the sentencing hearing and by finding him a predatory sexual offender under an incorrect statute. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the oral continuance motion and declining plain error review on the statutory citation issue.