Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

State of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent/Cross- 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
state-of-missouri-respondentrespondent/cross
Cases Shown
3
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Cases Involving State of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent/Cross-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Shawn C. Hanna, convicted of murder, sought Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate and call a crucial witness. The motion court partially granted relief, finding counsel ineffective for not presenting a witness whose testimony regarding the time of the shooting would have provided a viable defense. The State appealed this partial grant, and Hanna cross-appealed the denial of other claims. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's partial grant of relief, which included a new trial, and consequently did not address Hanna's cross-appeal.

Arlie R. Lewis appealed the denial of his amended post-conviction motion, while the State cross-appealed, arguing the motion court failed to conduct a proper abandonment inquiry. Lewis's post-conviction counsel filed the amended motion three days late, along with an unsworn Sanders motion. The motion court granted Lewis's motion in part, but the appellate court found the record insufficient to demonstrate an independent abandonment inquiry. The court reversed and remanded the case for the motion court to make a sufficient record of an independent abandonment inquiry.