Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

JOSHUA JOHNSON, 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
joshua-johnson-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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 JOSHUA JOHNSON, Movant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Apr 5, 2023

JOSHUA JOHNSON, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent

Appellant

Joshua Johnson appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Johnson claimed his guilty plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel regarding sentencing advice and that his constitutional rights were violated when sentencing continued while he was unconscious. The motion court found Johnson's testimony not credible, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the motion court did not clearly err in finding the plea knowing and voluntary, and that the claim regarding his presence at sentencing was not cognizable in a post-conviction motion.