Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 2291 - 2300 of 63511 for records.
Search results 2291 - 2300 of 63511 for records.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
” and “for transcripts and access to preexisting records.” 1 After reviewing the briefs and record, we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=101975 - 2017-09-21
” and “for transcripts and access to preexisting records.” 1 After reviewing the briefs and record, we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=101975 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
appendix, filing a false appendix certification, citing to its appendix rather than the record, and filing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32150 - 2008-03-17
appendix, filing a false appendix certification, citing to its appendix rather than the record, and filing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32150 - 2008-03-17
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
to respond and has not responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=175029 - 2017-09-21
to respond and has not responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=175029 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Clarence L. Martin
of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. NO. 97-1173-CR-NM 2 738 (1967), we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12396 - 2017-09-21
of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. NO. 97-1173-CR-NM 2 738 (1967), we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12396 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Anthony Lee Tucker
additional explanation for the denial of Tucker’s requests. ¶2 According to the appellate record, Tucker
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6602 - 2017-09-19
additional explanation for the denial of Tucker’s requests. ¶2 According to the appellate record, Tucker
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6602 - 2017-09-19
State v. Anthony Lee Tucker
for the denial of Tucker’s requests. ¶2 According to the appellate record, Tucker
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6602 - 2005-03-31
for the denial of Tucker’s requests. ¶2 According to the appellate record, Tucker
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6602 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
an order denying his motion to reconstruct the record. He also appeals from an order denying his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=60262 - 2011-11-28
an order denying his motion to reconstruct the record. He also appeals from an order denying his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=60262 - 2011-11-28
COURT OF APPEALS
as “Payback,” the detective consulted the Kenosha police department records under the name “Payback” and found
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56128 - 2010-11-02
as “Payback,” the detective consulted the Kenosha police department records under the name “Payback” and found
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56128 - 2010-11-02
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
the record and counsel’s report, we conclude that there are no issues
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=109194 - 2017-09-21
the record and counsel’s report, we conclude that there are no issues
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=109194 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Frontsheet
, arguing Sholar3 does not mandate a hearing if the record conclusively shows the defendant
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=540964 - 2022-09-16
, arguing Sholar3 does not mandate a hearing if the record conclusively shows the defendant
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=540964 - 2022-09-16