Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

JAMAAL J. WALLS 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
jamaal-j-walls
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 JAMAAL J. WALLS

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Jan 19, 2021

JAMAAL J. WALLS, Appellant vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent

Appellant

Jamaal J. Walls appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion to set aside his guilty pleas, arguing they were not voluntarily and knowingly entered because he was unaware of a dangerous offender classification. The motion court deemed his pro se motion timely under the Mailbox Rule despite an incorrect P.O. Box, but the appellate court found these findings insufficient. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for the motion court to make specific findings of fact regarding the timeliness of Walls's motion.