Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

RICK LEE MCCARTNEY 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
rick-lee-mccartney
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 RICK LEE MCCARTNEY

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Aug 12, 2022

RICK LEE MCCARTNEY, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent

Appellant

Rick Lee McCartney appealed the dismissal of his pro se Rule 24.035 motion seeking to set aside his guilty pleas, which the motion court found untimely. McCartney claimed that COVID-19 restrictions at the prison constituted circumstances beyond his control, justifying the late filing. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, holding that McCartney failed to prove any recognized exception to the timeliness requirement, as he did not demonstrate he had prepared the motion before the deadline or that the delay was solely caused by COVID-19 restrictions.