X hits on this document





25 / 115

the problem, and moved for a continuance.  The prosecutor, who had witnesses summoned for that date, objected, and the court denied the continuance despite the supervisor’s representation that he had never talked to the defendant and was completely unfamiliar with the case.  (Ibid.)  Little is obviously not on point; defendant here began trial with two attorneys, one of whom had defended him before on the same charges and had been reappointed more than two years earlier, the other of whom had been appointed four months earlier.

Nor does Hughes v. Superior Court (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 1, upon which defendant also relies, support his position.  In Hughes, the appellate court overturned a contempt order made against a defense attorney who refused to participate in a trial for which he was unprepared.  The attorney, a deputy public defender, had been assigned to two cases set for trial on the same Monday.  He guessed incorrectly which trial would actually go forward, used the weekend to prepare that case, and then was denied a continuance on the other, unprepared case.  (Id. at p. 3.)  The limited record before the appellate court did not indicate why he had announced ready on both cases when he was not prepared on one of them; nor, as far as the appellate opinion reflects, did it indicate whether he had had a significant period of time prior to the weekend before trial in order to prepare.  (See id. at pp. 5-6.)  In the present case, attorney Miller had more than two years to prepare to represent defendant.  He had repeatedly been warned not to take on other trial obligations and was not in fact forced to trial in two cases simultaneously; rather, he was granted continuances in the Louis case, which freed him to finish preparation for, and go to trial on, defendant’s case.  The trial court was not obliged to credit his claim that because he did not know which case was actually going to trial he could not prepare either.  The court did not abuse its discretion, or deny Miller a reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial, in refusing to grant an additional continuance on March 27, 1990.

Document info
Document views246
Page views246
Page last viewedTue Oct 25 16:37:04 UTC 2016