Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Myron Phillips Williams 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
myron-phillips-williams
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Myron Phillips Williams

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 8, 2020

Myron Phillips Williams, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Appellant

Myron Phillips Williams appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Williams alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming his plea counsel failed to investigate and challenge the plea court's jurisdiction to revoke his probation in a separate case prior to his guilty plea in the present case. The motion court denied relief, finding that claims of ineffective assistance in probation revocation hearings are not cognizable under Rule 24.035, and that Williams failed to allege he would not have pleaded guilty but for counsel's alleged ineffectiveness. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment.