Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

DIECKON T. CARDIN, 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
dieckon-t-cardin-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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 DIECKON T. CARDIN, Movant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Date unavailable

DIECKON T. CARDIN, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent

Appellant

Movant Dieckon T. Cardin appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. He claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging his plea counsel promised him long-term treatment, rendering his guilty plea involuntary. The motion court denied relief, finding the record refuted Movant's claim. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the record conclusively showed Movant was not entitled to relief, as the plea court, prosecutor, and plea counsel all indicated he was not eligible for long-term treatment.