Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Ronald L. Smith 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
ronald-l-smith
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Ronald L. Smith

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Feb 2, 2021

Ronald L. Smith, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Appellant

Ronald L. Smith appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, following his guilty plea to knowingly burning a truck he jointly owned with his estranged wife. Smith argued his plea was unknowing and involuntary, and his counsel ineffective, because he believed he could not be convicted of burning his own property. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the motion court's judgment, holding that a person can be convicted of knowingly burning "property of another" even if they also have an ownership interest, provided another person has a possessory or proprietary interest.