Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

TIFFANY DAWN HARRIS, Movant- 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
tiffany-dawn-harris-movant
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 TIFFANY DAWN HARRIS, Movant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Oct 24, 2018

TIFFANY DAWN HARRIS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.

Appellant

Tiffany Harris pled guilty to felony stealing and received a five-year sentence before the Missouri Supreme Court decided State v. Bazell, which held that stealing could not be enhanced to a felony. Harris sought post-conviction relief, arguing her sentence exceeded the maximum allowed by law based on Bazell. The motion court denied relief, finding Bazell was not retroactive. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Bazell's ruling applies only prospectively, except for cases pending on direct appeal, and Harris's case was not pending on direct appeal when Bazell was decided.