Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

MATTHEW THOMAS ESTES, Defendant- 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
matthew-thomas-estes-defendant
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 MATTHEW THOMAS ESTES, Defendant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Feb 1, 2023

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. MATTHEW THOMAS ESTES, Defendant-Appellant

Appellant

Matthew Thomas Estes appealed his convictions for first-degree assault and child abuse, arguing violations of his constitutional right to a speedy trial and prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. The trial court sentenced Estes to concurrent terms of 30 and 16 years. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding Estes failed to preserve his speedy trial claim for de novo review and could not demonstrate manifest injustice. The court also concluded that the prosecutor's closing argument was supported by evidence and did not constitute misconduct or plain error.