Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

KEVIN RAY JOBE 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
kevin-ray-jobe
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 KEVIN RAY JOBE

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Feb 28, 2023

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. KEVIN RAY JOBE, Appellant

Appellant

Kevin Ray Jobe pleaded guilty to robbery and assault. The trial court initially sentenced him to 15 years concurrently on both counts, but two days later, it set aside that judgment, claiming an inadvertent error, and resentenced him to a harsher term of 20 years on one count. Jobe appealed, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the sentence. The appellate court agreed, holding that once a sentence is imposed and memorialized, the trial court exhausts its authority to alter it, and remanded with directions to vacate the second sentencing order.