Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1981 - 1990 of 58531 for speedy trial.
Search results 1981 - 1990 of 58531 for speedy trial.
State v. Dean Garfoot
was competent to stand trial, the trial court did not apply the statutory standard to determine Garfoot's
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7956 - 2005-03-31
was competent to stand trial, the trial court did not apply the statutory standard to determine Garfoot's
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7956 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Dean Garfoot
conclude that when ruling that the State failed to prove that Garfoot was competent to stand trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7956 - 2017-09-19
conclude that when ruling that the State failed to prove that Garfoot was competent to stand trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7956 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, intelligent, and voluntary. He also asserts that this court should order a new trial in the interest
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=215061 - 2018-07-03
, intelligent, and voluntary. He also asserts that this court should order a new trial in the interest
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=215061 - 2018-07-03
William J. Keefe v. Ronald A. Arthur
. Arthur appeal from a trial court order entered February 26, 2004, vacating a previous order for judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19964 - 2005-10-17
. Arthur appeal from a trial court order entered February 26, 2004, vacating a previous order for judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19964 - 2005-10-17
[PDF]
William J. Keefe v. Ronald A. Arthur
. ¶1 KESSLER, J. Ronald A. and Kathleen M. Arthur appeal from a trial court order entered February
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=19964 - 2017-09-21
. ¶1 KESSLER, J. Ronald A. and Kathleen M. Arthur appeal from a trial court order entered February
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=19964 - 2017-09-21
State v. Corey A. Chatfield
),[1] following a jury trial, and from the order denying his motion for postconviction relief. He
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2219 - 2005-03-31
),[1] following a jury trial, and from the order denying his motion for postconviction relief. He
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2219 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Corey A. Chatfield
. STAT. §§ 948.03(2)(b) and No. 00-0296-CR 2 939.05 (1997-98),1 following a jury trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2219 - 2017-09-19
. STAT. §§ 948.03(2)(b) and No. 00-0296-CR 2 939.05 (1997-98),1 following a jury trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2219 - 2017-09-19
State v. Lionel N. Anderson
. Stat. § 948.02(1) (2001‑02).[1] Anderson submits that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19890 - 2005-12-11
. Stat. § 948.02(1) (2001‑02).[1] Anderson submits that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19890 - 2005-12-11
[PDF]
State v. Rickey V. Gray
an officer, (3) disorderly conduct, and (4) battery to an officer. Gray contends that the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5459 - 2017-09-19
an officer, (3) disorderly conduct, and (4) battery to an officer. Gray contends that the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5459 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
trial.[1] The issue is whether trial counsel was ineffective for agreeing to the trial court reading
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=41819 - 2009-10-05
trial.[1] The issue is whether trial counsel was ineffective for agreeing to the trial court reading
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=41819 - 2009-10-05