What is the burden of proving that a denial of a continuance is arbitrary?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Carr, B225581, Super. Ct. No. BA365758 (Cal. App. 2011):
The burden is on appellant to establish an abuse of judicial discretion in the denial of his request for continuance to secure new counsel. (See People v. Kaiser, supra, 113 Cal.App.3d at p. 761.) In deciding whether the denial of a continuance was so arbitrary as to violate due process, the reviewing court looks to the circumstances of each case, "'particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied.'" (Ungar v. Sarafite, supra, 376 U.S. at p. 589.)
In the instant case, the trial court found appellant's request for continuance was
Page 10
untimely. Appellant has the burden to show "an abuse of judicial discretion in the denial of his request for continuance to secure new counsel." (People v. Rhines (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 498, 506.) Appellant has not met his burden.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
