Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 3401 - 3410 of 6659 for mix.

State v. Duane E. Elm
of counsel presents a mixed question of fact and law. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 698. We will only reverse
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7830 - 2005-03-31

State v. Michael R. Cooper
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel present mixed questions of law and fact. Strickland v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5586 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] CA Blank Order
was ineffective is a mixed question of fact and law.” State v. Balliette, 2011 WI 79, ¶19, 336 Wis. 2d 358, 805
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=696657 - 2023-08-29

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
. ¶20 “Whether counsel was ineffective is a mixed question of fact and law.” State v. Balliette, 2011
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1030935 - 2025-11-05

[PDF] State v. Michael S. Kazanjian
(1987). Whether counsel’s performance was ineffective is a mixed question of fact and law. See id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15484 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
Assistance of Counsel ¶19 “Whether counsel was ineffective is a mixed question of fact and law.” State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=708665 - 2023-10-03

[PDF] State v. James J. Kempinski
there has been ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact. State ex rel. Flores
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8292 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
claim is a mixed question of law and fact.” State v. Dalton, No. 2023AP1690 8 2018 WI 85
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=831867 - 2024-07-31

[PDF] NOTICE
-of-counsel claim presents mixed questions of law and fact. See State v. Johnson, 153 Wis. 2d 121, 127, 449
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=56991 - 2014-09-15

Winnebago County Department of Health and Human Services v. Diane M.
counsel’s actions constitute ineffective assistance is a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Weber
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6942 - 2005-03-31