Lindsey, Kemuel
Lindsey, Kemuel
Lindsey, Kemuel
Opinion
«»iaM»aMMJW:«fflm''am»^J.i^^
Abd AGot>ta,G^rk: -5-1-15 T?p£>d>HZD08, tap.+oi SfeW ' 787j|
T^EL** lirictl Court Cat&*08'CJL-Z1&7-& T)<LCxr Mf>. AbelAcrxbta*.
Xarvr wri-Hiricj^Wis respond Accorclina +o a AWuJflfefe tece,ipt thotX have ju^t recfeivted fr0*a an Offender +ha+ u**b m 4he L/nau^h Unii vuHh meX-W, Appellant Wue> ^IqKvacI ** re^pt an£ foyvoard^ it +o^ CJfcrk 0?^ Di*Vk* Lour-To* ^^5-1*5 ^ /%nck+efere^'tptl5cUW^U,Du^ lex K-App.r 51-2>ct) JuciaWl^ of A^irrvwie; T^WW\i Is no+ ^uppo^ to be in CuiW of tK^HW, T>eoc^vy^t of Cvnnnjnal 3u<oKc& -feiloujeci w^fefe of ie>Ctt>J ^nc&rel ZW\UL<Z\ Unctee/
COURTOF CMliJflAL APPEALS W06 2015
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.