Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Solowmenn James Warren 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
solowmenn-james-warren
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Solowmenn James Warren

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable

State of Missouri vs. Solowmenn James Warren

Respondent

Solowmenn James Warren appealed his convictions for multiple felonies, including domestic assault, kidnapping, and unlawful possession of a firearm, challenging his enhanced sentence and the trial court's alleged failure to swear in the jury. Warren argued that his sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm was impermissibly "double enhanced" under section 558.016, and that the jury was never sworn. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the sentencing enhancement provisions were distinct and did not constitute double enhancement. The court also declined plain error review regarding the jury oath, noting a conflicting docket entry.