Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 821 - 830 of 69076 for he.
Search results 821 - 830 of 69076 for he.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
.2d 828. He claims No. 2016AP918-CR 2 the new factor was a report, prepared after
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=192128 - 2017-09-21
.2d 828. He claims No. 2016AP918-CR 2 the new factor was a report, prepared after
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=192128 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
hearing on his motion and because, despite being afforded a hearing, he failed to establish
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=850895 - 2024-09-18
hearing on his motion and because, despite being afforded a hearing, he failed to establish
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=850895 - 2024-09-18
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
his postconviction motion. The issue is whether he should have received an evidentiary hearing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=234877 - 2019-02-14
his postconviction motion. The issue is whether he should have received an evidentiary hearing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=234877 - 2019-02-14
[PDF]
State v. Scott E. Laituri
no contest pleas to burglary of a dwelling and theft of movable property. He argues that new factors give
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7041 - 2017-09-20
no contest pleas to burglary of a dwelling and theft of movable property. He argues that new factors give
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7041 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the owner’s consent (OMVWOC), and No. 2019AP524-CR 2 misdemeanor theft. He also appeals
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=265362 - 2020-06-23
the owner’s consent (OMVWOC), and No. 2019AP524-CR 2 misdemeanor theft. He also appeals
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=265362 - 2020-06-23
State v. Paul Venema
. Stat. § 946.13(1)(a) (1999-2000).[1] On appeal, Venema argues that he could not have violated
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4386 - 2005-03-31
. Stat. § 946.13(1)(a) (1999-2000).[1] On appeal, Venema argues that he could not have violated
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4386 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
by clear and convincing evidence that he had a mental illness or that he was dangerous under the fifth
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=590139 - 2022-11-16
by clear and convincing evidence that he had a mental illness or that he was dangerous under the fifth
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=590139 - 2022-11-16
[PDF]
State v. Paul Venema
On appeal, Venema argues that he could not have violated the statute as a matter
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4386 - 2017-09-19
On appeal, Venema argues that he could not have violated the statute as a matter
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4386 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Lamarcus D. Jones
-CR 2 court’s order denying his postconviction motion for relief. Jones argues that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7107 - 2017-09-20
-CR 2 court’s order denying his postconviction motion for relief. Jones argues that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7107 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
and that Marinette County presented insufficient evidence to prove that he was dangerous pursuant to either § 51.20
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=789717 - 2024-04-16
and that Marinette County presented insufficient evidence to prove that he was dangerous pursuant to either § 51.20
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=789717 - 2024-04-16