What factors are considered by the trial court in granting a motion to delay the trial of a defendant?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Morgan, 101 Cal.App.3d 523, 161 Cal.Rptr. 664 (Cal. App. 1980):

Other factors besides the reason for delay to be considered by the trial court in such a motion are the quality of representation being afforded the defendant by counsel, the defendant's prior proclivity to substitute counsel, the reasons for the request, the length and stage of the proceedings, and the disruption or delay which might reasonably be expected to follow the granting of such a motion (People v. Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 128, 137 Cal.Rptr. 8, 560 P.2d 1187). It appears that the representation afforded appellant by the deputy public defender was of a satisfactory quality. Appellant's chief complaint two weeks before the trial was that the deputy public defender failed to communicate with him and appellant was concerned his attorney might not be prepared. The judge asked appellant's attorney whether he could be prepared, and counsel gave assurances that he could be because the case was not a complicated one. There is no showing that the deputy public defender was incompetent in any respect. In fact, appellant was acquitted of the charge of violating Penal Code section 12021; and convicted only of the charge of driving under the influence, which he actually admitted at trial. Also, 995 and 1538.5 motions were filed, each supported by a substantial memorandum. Thus, it does not appear that the quality of representation afforded appellant was a

Page 669

Other Questions


Does a motion for a new trial have to be granted because the trial court refused to grant a motion to sever? (California, United States of America)
In a motion for a new trial in a sexual assault case brought by Dimas, who is remanded on remand pending a retrial, what factors will the court consider in deciding whether to grant or deny the motion? (California, United States of America)
Does a motion for a new trial have to be granted because the trial court refused to grant a motion to sever? (California, United States of America)
Does a motion for a new trial have to be granted because the trial court refused to grant a motion to sever? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances will the court grant a motion to review a motion denying a defendant's eligibility to stand trial? (California, United States of America)
Is there any case law where the trial court would have exercised its discretion not to award a motion for damages even if the trial judge was aware of the fact that the motion was being brought before the court? (California, United States of America)
How has the trial court treated a motion to suppress a motion by a public defender appointed to represent defendant? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant obtain a new trial on the grounds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion to deny the motion on the same grounds as the previous motion? (California, United States of America)
Does a motion for a new trial need to be denied because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.