Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 23991 - 24000 of 38521 for t's.
Search results 23991 - 24000 of 38521 for t's.
[PDF]
NOTICE
….[I]t was the intent of the trial court to sentence Presley to concurrent time; therefore, he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28231 - 2014-09-15
….[I]t was the intent of the trial court to sentence Presley to concurrent time; therefore, he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28231 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Court of Appeals 2018-07-12T08:42:22-0500 CCAP-CDS
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=215618 - 2018-07-12
. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Court of Appeals 2018-07-12T08:42:22-0500 CCAP-CDS
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=215618 - 2018-07-12
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED October 14, 2020 Sheila T. Reiff Clerk
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=295882 - 2020-10-14
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED October 14, 2020 Sheila T. Reiff Clerk
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=295882 - 2020-10-14
[PDF]
NOTICE
because “[t]he only evidence presented at the refusal hearing was that the deputy observed erratic
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28923 - 2014-09-15
because “[t]he only evidence presented at the refusal hearing was that the deputy observed erratic
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28923 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
assistance of counsel test. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 (1984) (“[T]here is no reason
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=63723 - 2014-09-15
assistance of counsel test. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 (1984) (“[T]here is no reason
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=63723 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
engage in rewriting the statute, not merely interpreting it,” and noting that “[t]he role
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=194809 - 2017-09-21
engage in rewriting the statute, not merely interpreting it,” and noting that “[t]he role
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=194809 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=448141 - 2021-11-03
. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=448141 - 2021-11-03
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED May 6, 2021 Sheila T. Reiff Clerk
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=363708 - 2021-05-06
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED May 6, 2021 Sheila T. Reiff Clerk
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=363708 - 2021-05-06
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
will not be published. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Court of Appeals
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=416776 - 2021-08-31
will not be published. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Court of Appeals
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=416776 - 2021-08-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
state following his termination and that “[t]his emotional testimony was not relevant to the breach
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=117397 - 2017-09-21
state following his termination and that “[t]his emotional testimony was not relevant to the breach
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=117397 - 2017-09-21