Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 14251 - 14260 of 64217 for records.
Search results 14251 - 14260 of 64217 for records.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
2 independent review of the record, we conclude that there is no arguable merit to any issue
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1017772 - 2025-10-02
2 independent review of the record, we conclude that there is no arguable merit to any issue
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1017772 - 2025-10-02
State v. Daniel R. Ludwig
a reasonable decision in accordance with accepted legal standards and the facts of record. State v. Hereford
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5021 - 2005-03-31
a reasonable decision in accordance with accepted legal standards and the facts of record. State v. Hereford
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5021 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
of the Record, we conclude there are no issues with arguable merit for appeal. Therefore, we summarily affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1020054 - 2025-10-08
of the Record, we conclude there are no issues with arguable merit for appeal. Therefore, we summarily affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1020054 - 2025-10-08
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
review of the records, the court concludes that the record does not show arguable merit to any issue
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1097531 - 2026-03-26
review of the records, the court concludes that the record does not show arguable merit to any issue
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1097531 - 2026-03-26
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
2 independent review of the record, we conclude that there is no arguable merit to any issue
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1017772 - 2025-10-02
2 independent review of the record, we conclude that there is no arguable merit to any issue
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1017772 - 2025-10-02
CA Blank Order
. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=132251 - 2014-12-29
. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=132251 - 2014-12-29
[PDF]
John C. Koshick v. State
his brief. The next event shown in the record is that on September 15, 2000, the court entered
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3241 - 2017-09-19
his brief. The next event shown in the record is that on September 15, 2000, the court entered
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3241 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. David E.V.
required under § 48.365(2m)(a), STATS. Second, he contends the record fails to establish that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8962 - 2017-09-19
required under § 48.365(2m)(a), STATS. Second, he contends the record fails to establish that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8962 - 2017-09-19
State v. Daniel J. Balint
in the record to demonstrate that Balint knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, this court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8706 - 2005-03-31
in the record to demonstrate that Balint knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, this court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8706 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. David E.V.
required under § 48.365(2m)(a), STATS. Second, he contends the record fails to establish that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8963 - 2017-09-19
required under § 48.365(2m)(a), STATS. Second, he contends the record fails to establish that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8963 - 2017-09-19