Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 11341 - 11350 of 50070 for our.
Search results 11341 - 11350 of 50070 for our.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
sentence. We agree with counsel that this issue lacks arguable merit. Our review of a sentence
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=263159 - 2020-06-04
sentence. We agree with counsel that this issue lacks arguable merit. Our review of a sentence
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=263159 - 2020-06-04
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
not responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=138018 - 2017-09-21
not responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=138018 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
sentencing discretion. As to the first issue, our review of the record—including the plea questionnaire
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=745628 - 2023-12-28
sentencing discretion. As to the first issue, our review of the record—including the plea questionnaire
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=745628 - 2023-12-28
State v. Romaine A. Langham
. Thus, our review is de novo. State v. Swiams, 2004 WI App 217, ¶5, 277 Wis. 2d 400, 404, 690 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25668 - 2006-07-25
. Thus, our review is de novo. State v. Swiams, 2004 WI App 217, ¶5, 277 Wis. 2d 400, 404, 690 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25668 - 2006-07-25
COURT OF APPEALS
, that is not by itself a reversible error. Our review of summary judgment is de novo, Neis, 349 Wis. 2d 461, ¶15
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=112697 - 2014-05-21
, that is not by itself a reversible error. Our review of summary judgment is de novo, Neis, 349 Wis. 2d 461, ¶15
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=112697 - 2014-05-21
COURT OF APPEALS
“clearly indicates that our supreme court meant the sentencing court which imposed the sentence under
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=108310 - 2014-02-24
“clearly indicates that our supreme court meant the sentencing court which imposed the sentence under
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=108310 - 2014-02-24
[PDF]
NOTICE
that they entrust me and our judges in the sentencing field by setting the maximum and in this offense the maximum
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33222 - 2014-09-15
that they entrust me and our judges in the sentencing field by setting the maximum and in this offense the maximum
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33222 - 2014-09-15
State v. Wilbert L. Thomas
a word or clause superfluous). Our conclusion that the legislature did not intend
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13530 - 2005-03-31
a word or clause superfluous). Our conclusion that the legislature did not intend
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13530 - 2005-03-31
CA Blank Order
to the report and has not responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=101775 - 2013-09-09
to the report and has not responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=101775 - 2013-09-09
CA Blank Order
interests of the children. Our review of the record confirms counsel’s conclusion that these potential
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=147278 - 2015-09-01
interests of the children. Our review of the record confirms counsel’s conclusion that these potential
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=147278 - 2015-09-01