Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

HOWARD ROBERTS, 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
howard-roberts-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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 HOWARD ROBERTS, Movant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Aug 29, 2025

HOWARD ROBERTS, Movant-Respondent v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Appellant

Respondent

The State of Missouri appealed an "Amended Order and Judgment" from the motion court, which granted Howard Roberts' Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, vacated his conviction and sentence, ordered a new trial, and directed his immediate release. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding the Amended Order was not a final judgment because it failed to adjudicate all of Roberts' viable claims. Additionally, the court vacated the portion of the order releasing Roberts, holding that Rule 30.17 mandates a defendant remain in custody during the State's appeal of a post-conviction relief order.