Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1871 - 1880 of 58285 for speedy trial.
Search results 1871 - 1880 of 58285 for speedy trial.
WI App 129 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 2012AP94-CR Complete Title ...
)(a), 939.63, & 939.32.[1] The trial court sentenced him to a bifurcated sentence of thirty-five years
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=88777 - 2012-11-28
)(a), 939.63, & 939.32.[1] The trial court sentenced him to a bifurcated sentence of thirty-five years
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=88777 - 2012-11-28
State v. Otis G. Mattox
grounds. Mattox submits that the trial court’s reasons for declaring a mistrial over his and the State’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25143 - 2006-06-27
grounds. Mattox submits that the trial court’s reasons for declaring a mistrial over his and the State’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25143 - 2006-06-27
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
the defendant may prevail.” 2 The trial court agreed with the State and denied the motion without
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=152304 - 2017-09-21
the defendant may prevail.” 2 The trial court agreed with the State and denied the motion without
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=152304 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Otis G. Mattox
)(a) and 939.63(1)(2) (2003-04), 2 on double jeopardy grounds. Mattox submits that the trial court’s reasons
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25143 - 2017-09-21
)(a) and 939.63(1)(2) (2003-04), 2 on double jeopardy grounds. Mattox submits that the trial court’s reasons
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25143 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
). No. 2018AP2329 2 ¶1 PER CURIAM. Taft and Carol Parsons (the Parsons) appeal the trial court’s order
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=252310 - 2020-01-14
). No. 2018AP2329 2 ¶1 PER CURIAM. Taft and Carol Parsons (the Parsons) appeal the trial court’s order
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=252310 - 2020-01-14
COURT OF APPEALS
guilty pleas were constitutionally defective, and whether the trial court erroneously exercised its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32438 - 2008-04-14
guilty pleas were constitutionally defective, and whether the trial court erroneously exercised its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32438 - 2008-04-14
[PDF]
NOTICE
pleas were constitutionally defective, and whether the trial court erroneously exercised its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32438 - 2014-09-15
pleas were constitutionally defective, and whether the trial court erroneously exercised its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32438 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
WIS. STAT. § 948.02(2) (2001-02). 1 Matthews argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=101254 - 2017-09-21
WIS. STAT. § 948.02(2) (2001-02). 1 Matthews argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=101254 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
-02).[1] Matthews argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by refusing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=101254 - 2013-08-26
-02).[1] Matthews argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by refusing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=101254 - 2013-08-26
COURT OF APPEALS
a postconviction order denying his motion for sentence modification. The issue is whether the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31786 - 2008-02-11
a postconviction order denying his motion for sentence modification. The issue is whether the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31786 - 2008-02-11