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
jermaine-d-williams
Cases Shown
2
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.
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.
Jermaine Williams appealed the denial of his post-conviction relief motion, arguing the circuit court failed to address claims in his timely filed second amended motion. The State conceded the second amended motion was timely and the circuit court erred. The Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final judgment, holding that the circuit court's failure to address all claims in the operative motion rendered its judgment non-final under Rule 74.01(b). The court noted that Rule 24.035(g) does not prohibit filing a second amended motion if it is timely.
Jermaine D. Williams appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing that the plea court violated his constitutional rights by sua sponte withdrawing his first guilty plea without his consent, and that his plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by not timely objecting. Williams contended he was prejudiced by a seventy-day delay in sentencing. The Western District of Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that Williams impliedly consented to the withdrawal of his first guilty plea by failing to object, and that counsel's decision not to object was a strategic one, thus not constituting deficient performance.