Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Martese Jamon Johnson Winters 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
martese-jamon-johnson-winters
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Martese Jamon Johnson Winters

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Mar 30, 2021

State of Missouri vs. Martese Jamon Johnson Winters

Respondent

Martese Jamon Johnson Winters appealed his convictions for rape, sodomy, and sexual exploitation of a minor, specifically challenging the trial court's sentencing. Winters argued the court erred by imposing a total sentence of twenty years, which he claimed exceeded the jury's recommended total term due to alleged misinstruction regarding concurrent sentences. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding Winters's claims of error were not preserved for review due to affirmative waiver. Even under plain error review, the court concluded that the jury's recommendation for concurrent sentences was advisory and not binding, and thus no manifest injustice occurred.