Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

ROBERT BENEDICT 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
robert-benedict
Cases Shown
2
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 ROBERT BENEDICT

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Nov 20, 2018

Robert Benedict vs. State of Missouri

Appellant

Robert Benedict appealed the motion court's dismissal of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion, which was based on the application of the escape rule. Benedict argued that the escape rule was inapplicable because the alleged error, an unauthorized sentence, arose after his return to custody. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the escape rule does not apply to errors that occurred after a defendant's return to custody, and therefore the motion court clearly erred in dismissing the motion.