Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 3041 - 3050 of 24568 for extending.
Search results 3041 - 3050 of 24568 for extending.
State v. Jared J.
only three and one-half months remained on the dispositional order and determined that it could extend
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12837 - 2005-03-31
only three and one-half months remained on the dispositional order and determined that it could extend
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12837 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
’ initial confinement and thirty years’ extended supervision. After the court pointed out that it could
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=213185 - 2018-05-23
’ initial confinement and thirty years’ extended supervision. After the court pointed out that it could
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=213185 - 2018-05-23
COURT OF APPEALS
his sentence of twenty years’ initial confinement and ten years’ extended supervision. He further
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34314 - 2008-10-14
his sentence of twenty years’ initial confinement and ten years’ extended supervision. He further
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34314 - 2008-10-14
[PDF]
NOTICE
of extended supervision, to be served consecutively. Because Presberry’s attorney was not ineffective
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33046 - 2014-09-15
of extended supervision, to be served consecutively. Because Presberry’s attorney was not ineffective
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33046 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Jesse Ruiz
. No. 2004AP886-CR 3 year periods of confinement and extended supervision. After the summary rejection
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25413 - 2017-09-21
. No. 2004AP886-CR 3 year periods of confinement and extended supervision. After the summary rejection
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25413 - 2017-09-21
State v. Jared J.
only three and one-half months remained on the dispositional order and determined that it could extend
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12836 - 2005-03-31
only three and one-half months remained on the dispositional order and determined that it could extend
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12836 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
concurrently, with two years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision. Soles’ lawyer
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=104150 - 2017-09-21
concurrently, with two years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision. Soles’ lawyer
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=104150 - 2017-09-21
State v. Daniel E.
that the termination order is invalid because he was not properly notified of a request to extend a CHIPS[1] order
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16063 - 2005-03-31
that the termination order is invalid because he was not properly notified of a request to extend a CHIPS[1] order
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16063 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
imposed consecutive terms of six years’ initial confinement and six years’ extended supervision
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=237309 - 2019-03-11
imposed consecutive terms of six years’ initial confinement and six years’ extended supervision
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=237309 - 2019-03-11
COURT OF APPEALS
years of initial confinement followed by ten years’ extended supervision for the homicide; fifteen years
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=47753 - 2010-03-08
years of initial confinement followed by ten years’ extended supervision for the homicide; fifteen years
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=47753 - 2010-03-08