Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 9891 - 9900 of 68912 for j o e y.
Search results 9891 - 9900 of 68912 for j o e y.
[PDF]
State v. Chaning B. Grabner
emphasized that the remarks of counsel are not evidence. “If the remarks impl[y] the existence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4972 - 2017-09-19
emphasized that the remarks of counsel are not evidence. “If the remarks impl[y] the existence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4972 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
NOTICE
the plea hearing as follows: [M]y understanding of the upshot [was] the defendant realized
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36676 - 2014-09-15
the plea hearing as follows: [M]y understanding of the upshot [was] the defendant realized
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36676 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
and waned in my opinion regarding his suitability for release. … [M]y concern is that I believe he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=99986 - 2017-09-21
and waned in my opinion regarding his suitability for release. … [M]y concern is that I believe he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=99986 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, “[Y]ou know, there’s guns on both sides of this door.” Mathwich backed away from the residence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=118464 - 2014-09-15
, “[Y]ou know, there’s guns on both sides of this door.” Mathwich backed away from the residence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=118464 - 2014-09-15
State v. Chaning B. Grabner
are not evidence. “If the remarks impl[y] the existence of certain facts and those facts [are] not [] in evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4972 - 2005-03-31
are not evidence. “If the remarks impl[y] the existence of certain facts and those facts [are] not [] in evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4972 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the circuit court’s factual findings unless those are clearly erroneous.” Id. But we “independently appl[y
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=970394 - 2025-06-18
the circuit court’s factual findings unless those are clearly erroneous.” Id. But we “independently appl[y
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=970394 - 2025-06-18
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
because “[m]y understanding was that I wouldn’t be found guilty.” He testified that trial counsel told
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=243956 - 2019-07-23
because “[m]y understanding was that I wouldn’t be found guilty.” He testified that trial counsel told
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=243956 - 2019-07-23
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
was effective, because SRO and S & K were in fact the same entity: [Y]ou can’t defectively attempt to convert
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=215157 - 2018-07-03
was effective, because SRO and S & K were in fact the same entity: [Y]ou can’t defectively attempt to convert
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=215157 - 2018-07-03
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
court noted at the sentencing hearing that “[y]ou have not to some extent been cooperative
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=104656 - 2017-09-21
court noted at the sentencing hearing that “[y]ou have not to some extent been cooperative
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=104656 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
to follow any particular recommendation. Do you understand that?” Russell replied, “[y]es sir.” ¶10
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30629 - 2007-10-22
to follow any particular recommendation. Do you understand that?” Russell replied, “[y]es sir.” ¶10
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30629 - 2007-10-22