Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

JAMES W. HENNEHA, 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
james-w-henneha-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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 JAMES W. HENNEHA, Movant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Apr 6, 2023

JAMES W. HENNEHA, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent

Appellant

James W. Henneha appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which the motion court dismissed as untimely filed. Henneha argued that circumstances beyond his control, including the COVID-19 pandemic and solitary confinement, justified the late filing. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the motion court did not clearly err in concluding Henneha failed to prove a recognized exception to the timeliness requirement, as he did not show he did all he reasonably could to ensure timely filing or that the delay was solely due to third-party interference.