Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 7441 - 7450 of 63957 for records.
Search results 7441 - 7450 of 63957 for records.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
not responded. Based upon its independent review of the records and the no-merit report, this court concludes
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=923101 - 2025-03-11
not responded. Based upon its independent review of the records and the no-merit report, this court concludes
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=923101 - 2025-03-11
COURT OF APPEALS
issues in addition to our obligation in a no-merit appeal to independently search the record for any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=44866 - 2009-12-21
issues in addition to our obligation in a no-merit appeal to independently search the record for any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=44866 - 2009-12-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
a response and has not responded. After reviewing the Record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=970552 - 2025-06-18
a response and has not responded. After reviewing the Record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=970552 - 2025-06-18
CA Blank Order
review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=98828 - 2013-07-01
review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=98828 - 2013-07-01
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
on our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=843470 - 2024-08-29
on our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=843470 - 2024-08-29
State v. Daniel J. Luedke
the lawyer to reiterate what was explained to the defendant; or (3) by expressly referring to the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3010 - 2005-03-31
the lawyer to reiterate what was explained to the defendant; or (3) by expressly referring to the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3010 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
and in favor of Jerome and Dorothea Saavedra. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1017718 - 2025-09-30
and in favor of Jerome and Dorothea Saavedra. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1017718 - 2025-09-30
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
not filed a response. Upon reviewing the entire record, as well as the no-merit report, we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=155640 - 2017-09-21
not filed a response. Upon reviewing the entire record, as well as the no-merit report, we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=155640 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
the consecutive sentences. We concluded, upon independent review of the record, that further appeal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35943 - 2009-03-23
the consecutive sentences. We concluded, upon independent review of the record, that further appeal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35943 - 2009-03-23
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
reviewing the Record, counsel’s report, and Ely’s response, we conclude that there are no issues
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1017896 - 2025-10-01
reviewing the Record, counsel’s report, and Ely’s response, we conclude that there are no issues
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1017896 - 2025-10-01