Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Travone Shaw 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
travone-shaw
Cases Shown
2
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Travone Shaw

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Nov 30, 2021

Travone Shaw vs. State of Missouri

Appellant

Travone Shaw appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a "reasonable juvenile" standard in the involuntary manslaughter jury instruction. Shaw contended that his age at the time of the crime should have influenced the foreseeability standard for accomplice liability. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, holding that the proposed instruction modification was inconsistent with Missouri law, and therefore, counsel was not ineffective for failing to request it.