Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1681 - 1690 of 58458 for speedy trial.
Search results 1681 - 1690 of 58458 for speedy trial.
COURT OF APPEALS
for postconviction relief. We affirm the judgment and order. ¶2 The issue on appeal is whether the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=77359 - 2012-01-31
for postconviction relief. We affirm the judgment and order. ¶2 The issue on appeal is whether the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=77359 - 2012-01-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
., Jr. (“V.C.”) appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his son, J.T.C., 2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=192736 - 2017-09-21
., Jr. (“V.C.”) appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his son, J.T.C., 2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=192736 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, who was found guilty of these crimes after a trial to the court, also appeals from an order denying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=260762 - 2020-05-19
, who was found guilty of these crimes after a trial to the court, also appeals from an order denying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=260762 - 2020-05-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
he exercised his right of allocution at sentencing, the trial court violated his Fifth Amendment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=217541 - 2018-08-23
he exercised his right of allocution at sentencing, the trial court violated his Fifth Amendment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=217541 - 2018-08-23
State v. Eva M. Bakken
concentration in excess of 0.1%, contrary to § 346.63(1)(b). Bakken contends that: (1) the trial court erred
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8461 - 2005-03-31
concentration in excess of 0.1%, contrary to § 346.63(1)(b). Bakken contends that: (1) the trial court erred
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8461 - 2005-03-31
Manor Park Village v. Robin Spoden
argues that the trial court improperly evicted her from her apartment without a trial of the issues
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9750 - 2005-03-31
argues that the trial court improperly evicted her from her apartment without a trial of the issues
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9750 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Mighty T. Howell
. No. 2005AP1668 2 (1) his waiver of the right to a jury trial was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent; (2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25906 - 2017-09-21
. No. 2005AP1668 2 (1) his waiver of the right to a jury trial was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent; (2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25906 - 2017-09-21
State v. Mighty T. Howell
of the right to a jury trial was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent; (2) the trial court’s colloquy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25906 - 2006-08-29
of the right to a jury trial was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent; (2) the trial court’s colloquy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25906 - 2006-08-29
State v. Michael L. Anderson
-2000).[1] The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4599 - 2005-03-31
-2000).[1] The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4599 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
judgment of conviction for a traffic violation. Patterson argues that the trial court erroneously
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=38154 - 2014-09-15
judgment of conviction for a traffic violation. Patterson argues that the trial court erroneously
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=38154 - 2014-09-15