Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Orlando Kim Ferguson, II 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
orlando-kim-ferguson-ii
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Orlando Kim Ferguson, II

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Sep 26, 2023

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Orlando Kim Ferguson, II, Appellant.

Appellant

Orlando Ferguson appealed his convictions from a retrial for first-degree statutory sodomy and first-degree child molestation. He argued the trial court erred by denying his double jeopardy motion, failing to exclude witness credibility testimony, and ordering consecutive sentences based on a legal misunderstanding. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, denied the double jeopardy and witness credibility claims, but agreed the trial court erred in its belief regarding mandatory consecutive sentences. The case was remanded for the limited purpose of re-sentencing on the statutory sodomy charges to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion.