Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

JOSEPH WILLIE PROBY, 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
joseph-willie-proby-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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 JOSEPH WILLIE PROBY, Movant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Sep 5, 2019

JOSEPH WILLIE PROBY, Movant-Appellant vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent

Appellant

Joseph Willie Proby appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Proby claimed his appellate counsel failed to argue that his prior uncounseled state misdemeanor stealing pleas could not be used to enhance his current stealing charges to felonies under section 570.040. The motion court denied relief, finding the statute's plain meaning allowed the enhancement and counsel was not ineffective. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the statutory interpretation claim was not meritorious and was unpreserved for direct appeal, thus appellate counsel was not ineffective.