Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Jamie Hernandez 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
jamie-hernandez
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Jamie Hernandez

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jul 16, 2019

Jamie Hernandez, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Appellant

Jamie Hernandez appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. He argued that his plea counsel was ineffective for misinforming him about deportation consequences and that he was denied due process at his probation revocation hearing. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel because the plea occurred before the duty to advise on immigration consequences was established, and the probation revocation challenge was not cognizable under Rule 24.035.