Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 6861 - 6870 of 74538 for public records.
Search results 6861 - 6870 of 74538 for public records.
State v. James Arnold
of the victim’s counseling records prior to sentencing. Because we conclude that the trial court did not err, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6723 - 2005-03-31
of the victim’s counseling records prior to sentencing. Because we conclude that the trial court did not err, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6723 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
not responded. Upon our independent review of the record as No. 2017AP614-CRNM 2 mandated
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=197768 - 2017-10-17
not responded. Upon our independent review of the record as No. 2017AP614-CRNM 2 mandated
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=197768 - 2017-10-17
CA Blank Order
reviewing the record and counsel’s reports, we conclude that there are no issues with arguable merit
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=109564 - 2014-04-01
reviewing the record and counsel’s reports, we conclude that there are no issues with arguable merit
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=109564 - 2014-04-01
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
-in offenses and Linton’s prior criminal record, the sentence imposed does not “shock public sentiment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1003800 - 2025-09-03
-in offenses and Linton’s prior criminal record, the sentence imposed does not “shock public sentiment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1003800 - 2025-09-03
CA Blank Order
no-merit report per this court’s order.[2] After reviewing the record and counsel’s reports, we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=110218 - 2014-04-15
no-merit report per this court’s order.[2] After reviewing the record and counsel’s reports, we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=110218 - 2014-04-15
CA Blank Order
. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=92740 - 2013-02-11
. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=92740 - 2013-02-11
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
the record, counsel’s reports, and Hess’ response, we conclude that there are no issues with arguable merit
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=258752 - 2020-04-29
the record, counsel’s reports, and Hess’ response, we conclude that there are no issues with arguable merit
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=258752 - 2020-04-29
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=206760 - 2018-01-09
independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=206760 - 2018-01-09
CA Blank Order
a response, and has elected not to do so. After reviewing the record and counsel’s report, we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=99690 - 2013-07-23
a response, and has elected not to do so. After reviewing the record and counsel’s report, we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=99690 - 2013-07-23
[PDF]
State v. David T.O.
he had no prior record and was receptive to future treatment. Both sides correctly state
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10741 - 2017-09-20
he had no prior record and was receptive to future treatment. Both sides correctly state
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10741 - 2017-09-20