Skip to content
St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Pete Wright 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
in-the-matter-of-the-care-and-treatment-of-pete-wright
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Criminal LawCivil LitigationEstate Planning

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.

Free Criminal Law ConsultationCall About A Criminal Law Claim

Cases Involving In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Pete Wright

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Sep 7, 2021

In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Pete Wright vs. State of Missouri

Appellant

Pete Wright appealed his civil commitment as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) under sections 632.480 through 632.525, RSMo, arguing the probate court erred by allowing him to represent himself at the commitment trial. The State had sought his commitment based on a prior conviction for forcible sodomy. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the probate court properly found Wright's waiver of counsel to be timely, unequivocal, knowing, and intelligent, and that he was competent to represent himself.

Criminal LawCivil LitigationEstate Planning