Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1021 - 1030 of 4814 for WA 0821 7001 0763 (FORTRESS) Pintu Baja Fortress Double Talun Blitar.
Search results 1021 - 1030 of 4814 for WA 0821 7001 0763 (FORTRESS) Pintu Baja Fortress Double Talun Blitar.
State v. Jamerrel Everett
that the State’s prosecution constituted double jeopardy because he had previously been disciplined for the same
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14846 - 2005-03-31
that the State’s prosecution constituted double jeopardy because he had previously been disciplined for the same
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14846 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
claims of double jeopardy violations. We reject these contentions, and affirm. Background ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=84417 - 2014-09-15
claims of double jeopardy violations. We reject these contentions, and affirm. Background ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=84417 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Jamerrel Everett
. ¶4 Second, Everett contends that the State’s prosecution constituted double jeopardy because he had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14846 - 2017-09-21
. ¶4 Second, Everett contends that the State’s prosecution constituted double jeopardy because he had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14846 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
motion based on the Double Jeopardy Clause of the federal and state constitutions, 1 which was denied
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=233999 - 2019-01-31
motion based on the Double Jeopardy Clause of the federal and state constitutions, 1 which was denied
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=233999 - 2019-01-31
State v. Otis G. Mattox
with a dangerous weapon, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 940.23(1)(a) and 939.63(1)(2) (2003-04),[2] on double jeopardy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25143 - 2006-06-27
with a dangerous weapon, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 940.23(1)(a) and 939.63(1)(2) (2003-04),[2] on double jeopardy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25143 - 2006-06-27
State v. Linda Lacey
relief. We discern that Lacey raises six arguments on appeal: (1) her double jeopardy rights were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6991 - 2005-03-31
relief. We discern that Lacey raises six arguments on appeal: (1) her double jeopardy rights were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6991 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
suffered violations of his right to be free from double jeopardy. We are satisfied that the supplemental
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=547552 - 2022-07-26
suffered violations of his right to be free from double jeopardy. We are satisfied that the supplemental
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=547552 - 2022-07-26
State v. Linda Lacey
relief. We discern that Lacey raises six arguments on appeal: (1) her double jeopardy rights were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6992 - 2005-03-31
relief. We discern that Lacey raises six arguments on appeal: (1) her double jeopardy rights were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6992 - 2005-03-31
CA Blank Order
the double jeopardy clauses of the state and federal constitutions. See State v. Burt, 2000 WI App 126, ¶1
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=134534 - 2015-02-02
the double jeopardy clauses of the state and federal constitutions. See State v. Burt, 2000 WI App 126, ¶1
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=134534 - 2015-02-02
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
are to the 2013-14 version unless otherwise noted. No. 2015AP850-CR 2 double jeopardy and because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=158979 - 2017-09-21
are to the 2013-14 version unless otherwise noted. No. 2015AP850-CR 2 double jeopardy and because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=158979 - 2017-09-21