Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 4421 - 4430 of 66224 for did.

State v. Devin D. Lenoir - 1997AP001728
) the prosecutor failed to timely disclose the status of the prosecution against his accomplice, (4) the State did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12625 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Kevin L. Guibord - 1998AP001936
from the case when Guibord indicated he did not want to be represented by counsel. 2 The facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14230 - 2014-09-15

State v. Kevin L. Guibord - 1998AP001936
to consider his motion to withdraw the pleas, the trial court did address the argument that it had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14230 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Devin D. Lenoir - 1997AP001728
did not have sufficient evidence to convict him, and (5) as a result of these and other factors, his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12625 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] David W. Barrow v. Wayne Watry - 1997AP002699
and paint them. Also, the Watrys threatened legal action if Barrow and DuCharme did not pay them
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13025 - 2017-09-21

David W. Barrow v. Wayne Watry - 1997AP002699
legal action if Barrow and DuCharme did not pay them by the end of March
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13025 - 2005-03-31

State v. Kerry R. Teller - 1995AP001643
. 1987). Teller contends that she did not read the waiver of rights form
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9204 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Larry N. Henkel - 1997AP001357
signifies that the court did find that the Dodge County conviction was a new factor. If there was no new
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12465 - 2017-09-21

State v. Larry N. Henkel - 1997AP001357
signifies that the court did find that the Dodge County conviction was a new factor. If there was no new
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12465 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Chance William Andrews - 2016AP001028
makes the same arguments on appeal. Because we conclude the State did not violate the plea agreement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=190467 - 2017-09-21