Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 9861 - 9870 of 63537 for records.
Search results 9861 - 9870 of 63537 for records.
[PDF]
NOTICE
the petition because it concluded that the record was insufficient to support Burns’ claims. We affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32799 - 2014-09-15
the petition because it concluded that the record was insufficient to support Burns’ claims. We affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32799 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
issues appellate counsel had addressed, and independently reviewing the record, we affirmed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29858 - 2014-09-15
issues appellate counsel had addressed, and independently reviewing the record, we affirmed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29858 - 2014-09-15
State v. Anthony D. Taylor
records for the trial in one of the prosecutions. Taylor added that he had a defense in both cases based
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14172 - 2005-03-31
records for the trial in one of the prosecutions. Taylor added that he had a defense in both cases based
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14172 - 2005-03-31
CA Blank Order
. Upon consideration of the report and an independent review of the record as mandated by Anders, we
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=135482 - 2015-02-24
. Upon consideration of the report and an independent review of the record as mandated by Anders, we
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=135482 - 2015-02-24
Rev. Thomas Ponchik v. John J. Eversman
record before us is inadequate for due process purposes, we reverse and remand with directions. I
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11553 - 2005-03-31
record before us is inadequate for due process purposes, we reverse and remand with directions. I
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11553 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that would have allowed for a motion to suppress Higgenbottom’s cell phone records. ¶6 One year later
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=367402 - 2021-05-19
that would have allowed for a motion to suppress Higgenbottom’s cell phone records. ¶6 One year later
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=367402 - 2021-05-19
CA Blank Order
and subsequent motion for reconsideration. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=133307 - 2015-01-20
and subsequent motion for reconsideration. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=133307 - 2015-01-20
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
has not filed a response. Having independently reviewed the entire record as mandated by Anders v
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=680450 - 2023-07-18
has not filed a response. Having independently reviewed the entire record as mandated by Anders v
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=680450 - 2023-07-18
State v. Anthony M. Harris
The record does not support Harris’ claim that the trial court conducted an inadequate plea colloquy. He
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7098 - 2005-03-31
The record does not support Harris’ claim that the trial court conducted an inadequate plea colloquy. He
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7098 - 2005-03-31
State v. Anthony M. Harris
The record does not support Harris’ claim that the trial court conducted an inadequate plea colloquy. He
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7099 - 2005-03-31
The record does not support Harris’ claim that the trial court conducted an inadequate plea colloquy. He
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7099 - 2005-03-31