Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Lamarion V.E. Thomas 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
lamarion-ve-thomas
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Lamarion V.E. Thomas

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 15, 2020

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Lamarion V.E. Thomas, Appellant.

Appellant

Lamarion V. E. Thomas, a juvenile offender, appealed the trial court's decision upholding the constitutionality of a statutorily mandated 15-year minimum sentence for forcible rape as applied to him. Thomas argued the mandatory minimum violated the Eighth Amendment and the Missouri Constitution by not allowing discretion for juvenile offenders. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles apply only to mandatory life without parole sentences, not to terms of years with parole eligibility, and that the trial court had considered his circumstances.