Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Donnie Wayne Hounihan 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
donnie-wayne-hounihan
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Donnie Wayne Hounihan

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Appellant

Donnie Hounihan appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. He claimed trial counsel failed to call a physician to testify regarding medications affecting his appearance of intoxication, and appellate counsel failed to challenge the insufficient evidence to enhance his driving while revoked (DWR) conviction to a felony. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief for the driving while intoxicated (DWI) conviction, finding no prejudice. However, the Court reversed the denial of relief for the DWR conviction, concluding that appellate counsel's failure to raise the sufficiency of evidence claim constituted ineffective assistance, and remanded for resentencing as a misdemeanor.