Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 5051 - 5060 of 58500 for speedy trial.
Search results 5051 - 5060 of 58500 for speedy trial.
State v. Karl Julius James
) trial counsel was ineffective; (2) trial counsel had a conflict of interest; (3) the prosecutor made
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7891 - 2005-03-31
) trial counsel was ineffective; (2) trial counsel had a conflict of interest; (3) the prosecutor made
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7891 - 2005-03-31
State v. Karl Julius James
) trial counsel was ineffective; (2) trial counsel had a conflict of interest; (3) the prosecutor made
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7794 - 2005-03-31
) trial counsel was ineffective; (2) trial counsel had a conflict of interest; (3) the prosecutor made
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7794 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. William F. Williams
the trial court erred in denying his motion without a hearing. We conclude the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4626 - 2017-09-19
the trial court erred in denying his motion without a hearing. We conclude the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4626 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Karl Julius James
an order denying postconviction relief. James claims that: (1) trial counsel was ineffective; (2) trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7891 - 2017-09-19
an order denying postconviction relief. James claims that: (1) trial counsel was ineffective; (2) trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7891 - 2017-09-19
State v. William F. Williams
. § 974.06. He claims the trial court erred in denying his motion without a hearing. We conclude the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4626 - 2005-03-31
. § 974.06. He claims the trial court erred in denying his motion without a hearing. We conclude the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4626 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Kim T. Timm v. Dennis L. Timm
challenges several aspects of the trial court’s exercise of discretion. Because we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9659 - 2017-09-19
challenges several aspects of the trial court’s exercise of discretion. Because we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9659 - 2017-09-19
State v. Barry Bartle
the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion because it: (1) admitted other acts evidence; (2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11513 - 2005-03-31
the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion because it: (1) admitted other acts evidence; (2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11513 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Frank Penigar, Jr.
), STATS. He also appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion for postconviction relief
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12751 - 2017-09-21
), STATS. He also appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion for postconviction relief
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12751 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
not owe the amount the trial court found he owed to Reedsburg. We conclude that we, an appellate court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36419 - 2014-09-15
not owe the amount the trial court found he owed to Reedsburg. We conclude that we, an appellate court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36419 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
and intelligently entered because the trial court violated State v. Hampton, 2004 WI 107, 274 Wis. 2d 379, 683 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=52592 - 2010-07-26
and intelligently entered because the trial court violated State v. Hampton, 2004 WI 107, 274 Wis. 2d 379, 683 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=52592 - 2010-07-26