Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 18091 - 18100 of 58507 for speedy trial.
Search results 18091 - 18100 of 58507 for speedy trial.
State v. Bryan Longworth
. WEDEMEYER, P.J.[1] Bryan Longworth appeals from a judgment of conviction, after a jury trial, for two
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8322 - 2005-03-31
. WEDEMEYER, P.J.[1] Bryan Longworth appeals from a judgment of conviction, after a jury trial, for two
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8322 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Norman O. Brown v. Richard Artison
claims the trial court erred in granting Artison’s motion to dismiss. Because the trial court erred
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10872 - 2017-09-20
claims the trial court erred in granting Artison’s motion to dismiss. Because the trial court erred
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10872 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. RULE 809.23(3). Edward Cole appeals pro se from an order denying his motion for a new trial. Based
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=248804 - 2019-10-23
. RULE 809.23(3). Edward Cole appeals pro se from an order denying his motion for a new trial. Based
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=248804 - 2019-10-23
State v. Scott J. Bogdala
, and that they were never going to be the same. ¶5 Bogdala argues that the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6333 - 2005-03-31
, and that they were never going to be the same. ¶5 Bogdala argues that the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6333 - 2005-03-31
CA Blank Order
and the trial court’s oral pronouncement reflect its intent to impose consecutive sentences, we affirm. In 1995
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=131740 - 2005-03-31
and the trial court’s oral pronouncement reflect its intent to impose consecutive sentences, we affirm. In 1995
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=131740 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Luke C. Anderson
with a person” without consent. At the plea hearing, after the trial court described the amendment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20861 - 2017-09-21
with a person” without consent. At the plea hearing, after the trial court described the amendment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20861 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Frontsheet
) his trial counsel formalized the substitution request 17 days after being appointed. ¶3 We
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=191653 - 2017-09-21
) his trial counsel formalized the substitution request 17 days after being appointed. ¶3 We
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=191653 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Frontsheet
testimony at trial. While it is true that the prosecutor made the initial overture to begin the plea
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=116774 - 2017-09-21
testimony at trial. While it is true that the prosecutor made the initial overture to begin the plea
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=116774 - 2017-09-21
Frontsheet
testimony at trial. While it is true that the prosecutor made the initial overture to begin the plea
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=116774 - 2014-07-09
testimony at trial. While it is true that the prosecutor made the initial overture to begin the plea
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=116774 - 2014-07-09
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
to a Pierringer release.2 ¶3 By the time of trial, the remaining plaintiffs were the Shockleys
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=444379 - 2021-10-21
to a Pierringer release.2 ¶3 By the time of trial, the remaining plaintiffs were the Shockleys
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=444379 - 2021-10-21