Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

DOYLE WILLIAM TURNER 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
doyle-william-turner
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 DOYLE WILLIAM TURNER

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Sep 29, 2020

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. DOYLE WILLIAM TURNER, Appellant

Appellant

Doyle William Turner appealed his numerous felony convictions, including burglary, assault, and rape, following a jury trial. He raised three points of error concerning jury selection, a verdict form discrepancy, and a clerical error in the written judgment. The appellate court affirmed all convictions except for the clerical error on Count IV, which it remanded for correction to reflect the oral pronouncement of sentence for trespassing instead of burglary. The court declined plain error review for the other two points, finding no manifest injustice or prejudice.