Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 11321 - 11330 of 50108 for our.
Search results 11321 - 11330 of 50108 for our.
COURT OF APPEALS
was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=95793 - 2013-04-22
was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=95793 - 2013-04-22
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
to file a response to the no-merit report and has not responded. Upon our independent review
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=240185 - 2019-05-07
to file a response to the no-merit report and has not responded. Upon our independent review
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=240185 - 2019-05-07
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
in the circuit court). Our review is limited to the circuit court’s sentencing discretion
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=231274 - 2018-12-26
in the circuit court). Our review is limited to the circuit court’s sentencing discretion
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=231274 - 2018-12-26
[PDF]
NOTICE
response. Id. Our independent conclusion, that challenging the sentence would lack arguable merit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31847 - 2014-09-15
response. Id. Our independent conclusion, that challenging the sentence would lack arguable merit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31847 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
and attorney’s fees. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=141514 - 2017-09-21
and attorney’s fees. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=141514 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
and in favor of his father’s estate in the amount of $81,249.23. Based upon our review of the briefs
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=143207 - 2017-09-21
and in favor of his father’s estate in the amount of $81,249.23. Based upon our review of the briefs
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=143207 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
that these issues do not have arguable merit for appeal. Our review of the record confirms appellate counsel’s
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=212769 - 2018-05-16
that these issues do not have arguable merit for appeal. Our review of the record confirms appellate counsel’s
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=212769 - 2018-05-16
Patricia S. Vander Bloemen v. State of Wisconsin Deparment of Natural Resources
a question of law which we review de novo. Ours is not a de novo standard of review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9270 - 2005-03-31
a question of law which we review de novo. Ours is not a de novo standard of review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9270 - 2005-03-31
CA Blank Order
. Arrowood was advised of his right to respond and has not responded. Upon our independent review
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=140093 - 2015-04-20
. Arrowood was advised of his right to respond and has not responded. Upon our independent review
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=140093 - 2015-04-20
CA Blank Order
filed a supplemental no-merit report. After our independent review of the record, we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=96518 - 2013-05-05
filed a supplemental no-merit report. After our independent review of the record, we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=96518 - 2013-05-05