Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 41741 - 41750 of 59029 for do.
Search results 41741 - 41750 of 59029 for do.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
to bring any meritorious claim. Vega is now required to do more than point to an issue not raised
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=212293 - 2018-05-09
to bring any meritorious claim. Vega is now required to do more than point to an issue not raised
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=212293 - 2018-05-09
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
they are to do it, it’s—it’s at least a four-year process.” The motion also noted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=121309 - 2014-09-15
they are to do it, it’s—it’s at least a four-year process.” The motion also noted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=121309 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Joseph S. Upright
plea would still be standing. What Upright really must do is move to withdraw his plea. However, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6996 - 2017-09-20
plea would still be standing. What Upright really must do is move to withdraw his plea. However, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6996 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of the statutory requirements under § 814.29(1m), which Ebben has failed to do. 2 Relatedly, Ebben’s briefing
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1027369 - 2025-10-22
of the statutory requirements under § 814.29(1m), which Ebben has failed to do. 2 Relatedly, Ebben’s briefing
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1027369 - 2025-10-22
COURT OF APPEALS
sentencing factors and applied those factors in detail. In doing so, the court never discussed whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=72963 - 2011-10-31
sentencing factors and applied those factors in detail. In doing so, the court never discussed whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=72963 - 2011-10-31
CA Blank Order
with appellate counsel that these issues do not have arguable merit for appeal. With regard to the entry of his
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=106031 - 2013-12-26
with appellate counsel that these issues do not have arguable merit for appeal. With regard to the entry of his
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=106031 - 2013-12-26
State v. Mark S. Mielke
circumstances justifying the entry, we do not need to address these additional arguments. [2] See also State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4616 - 2005-03-31
circumstances justifying the entry, we do not need to address these additional arguments. [2] See also State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4616 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Louis Ray
sentencing, Ray learned that the prosecutor had asked Reynolds after he testified what he would be doing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5187 - 2017-09-19
sentencing, Ray learned that the prosecutor had asked Reynolds after he testified what he would be doing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5187 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. We agree with appellate counsel that these issues do not have arguable merit for appeal
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=193640 - 2017-09-21
. We agree with appellate counsel that these issues do not have arguable merit for appeal
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=193640 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
order to appear. For these reasons, I do not rely on the supplemental no-merit report’s conclusion
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=575383 - 2022-10-13
order to appear. For these reasons, I do not rely on the supplemental no-merit report’s conclusion
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=575383 - 2022-10-13