Can a trial judge grant a continuance for good cause even if a decision by the supervising or presiding judge was in error?

The trial court's statement was in error. "When a matter is assigned for the purposes of trial, the trial judge has the authority to grant a continuance for good cause shown regardless of whether a continuance was denied by the supervising or presiding judge." (People v. Sherrod (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1174.) "[I]t is the obligation of 'the trial judge to assure that a criminal defendant is afforded a bona fide and fair adversary adjudication.' [Citation.]" (Ibid.) "To carry out this duty, the trial judge has the power to exercise reasonable control over all proceedings connected to the litigation before him or her, which power includes exercising discretion to continue the trial. [Citations.]" (Ibid.)

As respondent concedes, the trial judge had the authority to grant a continuance despite the denial in Department 1. (Sherrod, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 1174.) When a trial court's decision rests on an error of law, that decision is an abuse of discretion. (People v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 737, 746, 755 [trial court abused its discretion when it recused numerous prosecutors on a case based on an error of law].)