Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 11411 - 11420 of 85996 for WA 0821 7001 0763 (FORTRESS) Pintu Rumah 2 Pintu Motif Kayu Agats Asmat.

[PDF] State v. Gary Mahlum
jeopardy rights. We disagree; No. 98-2398-CR 2 the counts are not multiplicitous because each
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14403 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] FICE OF THE CLERK
) he is entitled to plea withdrawal; (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=792288 - 2024-04-24

[PDF] CA Blank Order
reason for doing so in violation of Batson.2 The State concedes that striking
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=958215 - 2025-05-21

State v. Robert A. Huppeler
is entitled to sentence modification pursuant to § 973.13, Stats.,[2] because the circuit court did not use
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14235 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
2 On December 30, 2011, Door County filed a complaint against Werkheiser, alleging
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=92698 - 2013-02-11

WI App 146 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 2010AP1377-CR Complete Titl...
and affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 On March 25, 2008, Long pled guilty to one count of fleeing an officer
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=72346 - 2005-11-28

COURT OF APPEALS
cause pursuant to Combs. Therefore, we affirm. ¶2 Jelks was found guilty of the second-degree
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33700 - 2008-08-11

State Public Defender v. Circuit Court for Fond Du Lac County
of counsel, at public expense, based on indigency.[2] A hearing was held on the motion, and the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8248 - 2010-08-10

State Public Defender v. Circuit Court for Fond Du Lac County
of counsel, at public expense, based on indigency.[2] A hearing was held on the motion, and the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8249 - 2010-08-10

State v. Kerney Wright
statements of the victim under the excited-utterance hearsay exception; (2) that the trial court erred
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10450 - 2010-10-13