Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 6911 - 6920 of 74553 for public records.
Search results 6911 - 6920 of 74553 for public records.
[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
[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
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
CA Blank Order
by Conroy’s prior criminal record, the sentence does not “shock public sentiment and violate the judgment
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=138594 - 2015-03-31
by Conroy’s prior criminal record, the sentence does not “shock public sentiment and violate the judgment
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=138594 - 2015-03-31
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
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
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
character including his substantial prior record, and the need to protect the public. See State v. Harris
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=171603 - 2017-09-21
character including his substantial prior record, and the need to protect the public. See State v. Harris
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=171603 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
replaced Attorney Hinkel as the counsel of record. 2 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=916418 - 2025-02-20
replaced Attorney Hinkel as the counsel of record. 2 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=916418 - 2025-02-20
[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