Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 2851 - 2860 of 12504 for mr.
Search results 2851 - 2860 of 12504 for mr.
[PDF]
State v. Michael B. Ilkka
was sentencing Mr. Ilkka for a fourth offense OWI, that it was asked … that this be a courtesy to Mr. Ilkka
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16175 - 2017-09-21
was sentencing Mr. Ilkka for a fourth offense OWI, that it was asked … that this be a courtesy to Mr. Ilkka
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16175 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Edward C. Brandau
belief on the part of Mr. Brandau and his attorney, I do not find on this Record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14796 - 2017-09-21
belief on the part of Mr. Brandau and his attorney, I do not find on this Record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14796 - 2017-09-21
Steven R. Passehl v. Jay Zeinert
negotiating; but actually, Mr. Zeinert was going to do the work.” The court determined that each timber
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7603 - 2005-03-31
negotiating; but actually, Mr. Zeinert was going to do the work.” The court determined that each timber
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7603 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
claimed that trial counsel was deficient when he “misadvised Mr. Jackson that he could continue
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=232957 - 2019-01-23
claimed that trial counsel was deficient when he “misadvised Mr. Jackson that he could continue
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=232957 - 2019-01-23
State v. Edward C. Brandau
of Mr. Brandau and his attorney, I do not find on this Record that it was a substantial inducement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14796 - 2005-03-31
of Mr. Brandau and his attorney, I do not find on this Record that it was a substantial inducement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14796 - 2005-03-31
State v. Kenyatta Thigpen
: It is not relevant either because why Mr. Thigpen was at the residence is already explained to the jury. He has told
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16038 - 2005-03-31
: It is not relevant either because why Mr. Thigpen was at the residence is already explained to the jury. He has told
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16038 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
on the Record why Mr. Dyer was ineligible for” the Challenge Incarceration Program (“CIP”). (Some
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=91312 - 2013-01-07
on the Record why Mr. Dyer was ineligible for” the Challenge Incarceration Program (“CIP”). (Some
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=91312 - 2013-01-07
[PDF]
State v. Kenneth D. Paulson
that you'd been released from custody on another offense which was a felony. Do you understand that? MR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14598 - 2017-09-21
that you'd been released from custody on another offense which was a felony. Do you understand that? MR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14598 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Virginia R. Ray
of the complaint charging Ray with violating the restraining order. On May 8, 2001, Mr. Dombeck photographed Ray
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5723 - 2017-09-19
of the complaint charging Ray with violating the restraining order. On May 8, 2001, Mr. Dombeck photographed Ray
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5723 - 2017-09-19
State v. Thomas L. Gillen
but that it was a matter of law to be determined as part of imposition of sentence. Court: Well, that could be, but Mr
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5615 - 2005-03-31
but that it was a matter of law to be determined as part of imposition of sentence. Court: Well, that could be, but Mr
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5615 - 2005-03-31