Law & Schriener, LLC
The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. See our Disclaimer for more information.

A Sample of Our Post-Conviction Success Stories


Whitiker v. United States, No. 4:12-CV-1467-JCH (E.D. Mo.) - United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Mr. Whitker's motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentences filed under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255.  Client's motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence granted on two grounds: 1) 2 level increase in sentencing guidelines for unauthorized access device was error; 2) court will resentence to determine whether aggravated identify theft counts should be run consecutively or concurrently. Rule 59(e) motion granted as to criminal history calculation.  Upon resentencing client received a forty-month lower sentence. 


Sills v. United States, No. 4:12-CV-1770-JCH (E.D. Mo.) - United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Mr.Sill's motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence filed under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255.  Mr. Sills entered a guilty plea for attempting to persuade a witness not to testify in a state trial.  Mr. Sills argued that no factual basis existed for the guilty plea because an "official proceeding" had to be a federal proceeding and not a state court proceeding.  Government concede motion.  


Bilauksi v. Steele, No. 4:09‑CV‑1983‑RWS (E.D. Mo.) - Untied States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri conditionally granted Mr. Bilauski's federal habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. The district court found that the Missouri Court of Appeals has unreasonably interpreted United States Supreme Court precedent and unreasonably applied the facts in denying post-conviction relief.


State v. J.P. - Client entered a guilty plea in 2006 to a misdemeanor for riding public transportation without proof of valid fare.  Client was not represented by counsel. In 2013, client retained services of Law & Schriener, LLC who filed a motion to withdraw his plea on the basis of manifest injustice. The court granted the motion and the prosecutor dismissed the case.


State v. E.T.- Client, who was not a United States citizen, entered a guilty plea in 2002 to a misdemeanor passing a bad check charge. For immigration purposes a bad check charge is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). Because he had another misdemeanor conviction which was also considered a CIMT, he was deportable. In 2012, a motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on manifest injustice pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.07(d) was filed. After a hearing, the court granted the motion and vacated the client's guilty plea and conviction. The prosecuting attorney eventually dismissed the charge.


State v. C.N. - In 2006, client, a Nigerian national on student visa enters guilty pleas to two misdemeanors ‑ stealing and 3rd degree assault ‑ believing that doing so would not result in his deportation. When client attempts to adjust his status, he is informed that he must leave the country or he will be deported because he has been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude. Motion to withdraw guilty pleas is filed in 2011 pursuant to Padilla v. Kentucky because client was not sufficiently informed of deportation consequences of guilty pleas. Court grants motion allowing pleas to be withdrawn and the prosecutor dismissed the cases.


Johnson v. Kemna, 451 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 1996) -  Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed dismissal of state prisoner's federal habeas case filed under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 as being time-barred. Case reversed and remanded to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri for further proceedings.