Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02104/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02104-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dave Gomez
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

fl LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

u~1frcd Scar~ VJtJrt of Appeals '.Jentl't. Ci:-- -:-ui~ 

MAR 2 2 1990 

~OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

DAN MARTINEZ and 

DAVE GOMEZ, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Nos. 89-2104 and 89-2105 

(D.C. No. CR 89-24 JC) 

(District of New Mexico) 

ORDER AND . JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR and MCWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER**, 

District Judge. 

By indictment, Dan Martinez and Dave Gomez were charged with 

the unlawful possession of 65 pounds of marijuana, with an intent 

to distribute the same, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 84l(a)(l). 

Both defendants filed motions to suppress the use at trial of the 

marijuana taken from the vehicle which Martinez was driving and in 

which Gomez was a passenger. After hearing, these motions were 

denied. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, Chief Judge of the United States 

District Court for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-2104 Document: 01019966661 Date Filed: 03/22/1990 Page: 1 
• 

On Monday, March 20, 1989, the case of Martinez and Gomez was 

set for trial on Wednesday, March 29, 1989. On Friday, March 24, 

1989, all concerned were advised by the court that because a case 

set for Monday, March 27, 1989, had been disposed of by a guilty 

plea, the trial of Martinez and Gomez would be moved forward to 

Monday, March 27, 1989. The prosecutor attempted to inform 

government witnesses of the new trial date and in so doing was 

unable to locate a key witness, Fred Brown, a Border Patrol Agent. 

On Friday afternoon (which was Good Friday), the prosecutor 

telephoned the judge's office in Las Cruces, New Mexico, to advise 

him of the difficulty he was having in locating witness Brown. 

However, no one was in the office to take the call, and a message 

was left on the telephone recorder. 

On Monday, March 27, 1989, the prosecutor, in open court, 

moved for a continuance because of his inability to locate witness 

Brown. Presumably, the request was simply to continue the trial 

date to March 29, 1989, the date originally set for trial. Both 

defendants, through counsel, announced their readiness for trial, 

whereupon the district court dismissed the indictment, with 

prejudice, and thereby implicitly denied the motion for 

continuance. In so doing, the district judge gave no explanation 

for his ruling, although he did note that he was dismissing the 

indictment with prejudice "reluctantly,'' because, having heard 

testimony at the hearing on the motion to suppress, "there is no 

doubt that there are two guilty men sitting in this courtroom 

that are going to walk." 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2104 Document: 01019966661 Date Filed: 03/22/1990 Page: 2 
The government appeals the judgment of dismissal, claiming 

that the district judge acted arbitrarily and capriciously in 

denying the motion for a continuance and in dismissing the indictment with prejudice. We agree. 

In the instant case, the jury was selected, but not sworn, on 

Monday, March 20, 1989. At the same time, juries were also 

selected in other cases to be tried in the ensuing days. On March 

20, 1989, the trial of Martinez and Gomez was set for Wednesday, 

March 29, 1989. Defense counsel inquired as to whether this was a 

"firm" setting, since the defendants would be coming from out-ofstate. To this query, the district court replied: "You can 

consider it firm unless something goes off." Later on in the same 

hearing, the district judge said, "Disregard everything I have 

said," and then stated that Martinez and Gomez would stand trial 

on Wednesday, March 29, 1989. 

As indicated, the district court on Friday, March 24, 1989, 

advised all concerned that the Martinez-Gomez trial would commence 

on Monday, March 27, 1989, because the trial set for that date had 

been resolved by a plea of guilty. 

All agree that a motion for a continuance is addressed to the 

sound discretion of the trial judge and that his ruling, on 

appeal, will not be reversed unless we conclude that the denial 

was arbitrary or unreasonable and materially prejudiced the moving 

party. In determining whether a denial of a motion for a 

continuance is arbitrary or capricious, 

others, should be considered: (1) 

several factors, among 

the diligence of the party 

seeking the continuance: (2) the likelihood that a continuance, if 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2104 Document: 01019966661 Date Filed: 03/22/1990 Page: 3 
• 

granted, would accomplish the purpose underlying the party's 

expressed need for the continuance; (3) the inconvenience to the 

opposing party, his witnesses, and the court resulting from a 

continuance; and (4) the need for the continuance and the harm to 

be suffered should a continuance be denied. United States v. 

West, 828 F.2d 1468, 1470 (10th Cir. 1987); United States v. 

Bradshaw, 787 F.2d 1385, 1392 (10th Cir. 1986). 

From the record before us it would appear that the district 

judge did not consider any of the factors above mentioned. When 

the prosecutor announced he was not ready for trial and advised 

the court of the crucial witness who could not be immediately 

located, the district judge, upon being advised by defense counsel 

that they were ready for trial, simply dismissed the indictment 

with prejudice. Such, in our view, was an abuse of discretion. 

Judgment reversed and cause remanded with direction that the 

district court reinstate the indictment and proceed to trial. 

Entered for the Court 

Robert H. McWilliams 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2104 Document: 01019966661 Date Filed: 03/22/1990 Page: 4