Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Stephen Andrew Eagleton 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
stephen-andrew-eagleton
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Stephen Andrew Eagleton

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Date unavailable

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Stephen Andrew Eagleton, Appellant.

Appellant

Stephen A. Eagleton appealed his conviction for second-degree assault, challenging the trial court's denial of his peremptory strike of a juror, its denial of his request for a continuance, and his five-year prison sentence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no clear error in the Batson challenge, no abuse of discretion in denying the continuance, and no plain error in the sentencing. The court concluded that the trial court properly considered appropriate factors in sentencing and did not impose a retaliatory sentence.