Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Nov 17, 2022

JAMAAL J. WALLS, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent

Appellant

Jamaal J. Walls pleaded guilty to burglary and failure to appear, receiving consecutive sentences. His burglary judgment erroneously classified him as a dangerous offender. Walls filed Rule 24.035 motions, and the motion court removed the erroneous language but denied his request to vacate his guilty pleas. On appeal, Walls argued the motion court erred in refusing to vacate his pleas, but the appellate court affirmed, holding that Walls failed to preserve the issue for review by not filing a Rule 78.07(c) motion to amend the judgment to include findings and conclusions on his due process claim.