Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 17321 - 17330 of 64215 for records.
Search results 17321 - 17330 of 64215 for records.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
are to the 2023-24 version. No. 2023AP939-CRNM 2 record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=952244 - 2025-05-06
are to the 2023-24 version. No. 2023AP939-CRNM 2 record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=952244 - 2025-05-06
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
our independent review of the record, we conclude there is no arguable merit to any issue that could
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=153816 - 2017-09-21
our independent review of the record, we conclude there is no arguable merit to any issue that could
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=153816 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Carl R. Lippstock
to state on the record why it was deviating from the guidelines. The guidelines for Lippstock’s crime
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10951 - 2017-09-19
to state on the record why it was deviating from the guidelines. The guidelines for Lippstock’s crime
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10951 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of the record, we conclude that there are no issues of arguable merit that could be raised on appeal. See WIS
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=217651 - 2018-08-09
of the record, we conclude that there are no issues of arguable merit that could be raised on appeal. See WIS
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=217651 - 2018-08-09
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of the records, the court concludes that the records do not show arguable merit to any issue that could
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=710053 - 2023-10-03
of the records, the court concludes that the records do not show arguable merit to any issue that could
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=710053 - 2023-10-03
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
filed a response. Counsel then filed a supplemental no-merit report. After reviewing the Record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1026124 - 2025-10-22
filed a response. Counsel then filed a supplemental no-merit report. After reviewing the Record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1026124 - 2025-10-22
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), this court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=983984 - 2025-07-17
independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), this court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=983984 - 2025-07-17
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
, and following an independent review of the appellate record as mandated by Anders, we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=857334 - 2024-10-09
, and following an independent review of the appellate record as mandated by Anders, we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=857334 - 2024-10-09
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, 334 Wis. 2d 402, 799 N.W.2d 898. There we said that “when evidence in the record consists
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=132228 - 2017-09-21
, 334 Wis. 2d 402, 799 N.W.2d 898. There we said that “when evidence in the record consists
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=132228 - 2017-09-21
State v. Frank J. Sackatook, Jr.
a DNA sample and pay a $250 DNA surcharge. We conclude that the record does not demonstrate
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3274 - 2005-03-31
a DNA sample and pay a $250 DNA surcharge. We conclude that the record does not demonstrate
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3274 - 2005-03-31