Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Michael W. Myers 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
michael-w-myers
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Michael W. Myers

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Jul 29, 2025

State of Missouri vs. Michael W. Myers

Respondent

Michael W. Myers appealed his convictions for first-degree murder, first-degree assault, and armed criminal action, challenging a jury instruction variance and a discrepancy between his oral and written sentences. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no plain error in the jury instruction regarding transferred intent, as Myers was on notice of this theory and failed to show prejudice. However, the court reversed and remanded for a nunc pro tunc amendment to correct the written judgment, which incorrectly stated that certain sentences were to run consecutively when the oral pronouncement was silent, meaning they should run concurrently.