COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Petty, Chaf in and Senior Judge Annunziata

WILLIAM R. JERNIGAN, JR. MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2158-13-3 PER CURIAM JUNE 3, 2014 STEVEN GOFF AND ANGELA GOFF

FROM THE CIRCUIT C OURT OF HENRY COUNTY Martin F. Clark, Jr., Judge (Harold E. Slate, II, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. 1 (Kimberly R. Belongia; H. Clay Gravely, IV, Guardian ad litem for the minor child, on brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on brief.
William R. Jernigan, Jr. (father) appeals an or der finding that he with held his consent to the adoption of his child, contrary to the child’s best interests. Fath er argues that the circuit court “abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a continuance and was thereby prejudiced by the resulting termination of his parental rights.” Upon reviewing the re cord and briefs of the parties, we conclude that the circ uit court did not err. Accordingly, we affi rm the decision of the circuit court.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.

1 Appellant filed a pro se brief, which we will not consid er since his attorney filed an opening brief on his behalf and appellant di d not obtain leave of court to file the pro se brief.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - BACKGROUND Father and Brittany Jernigan (m other) are the biolog ical parents of a ch ild who was born in September 2010. Mother’s sister is Angela Goff. Angela Goff an d her husband, St even Goff, have had custody of the chil d since February 2011. In March 2013, the Goffs started the proces s of adopting the child. Neither father nor mother would consent to the adopt ion. The Henry County Juvenile an d Domestic Rela tions District Court (JDR court) found th at mother and father were withholding their consent contrary to the best interests of the child and held that their consent to the child’s adoption was waived. Father appealed to the circuit court. At the start of the hearing on October 17, 2013, father ma de a motion for a continuance because certain witnes ses were not present. Fath er’s attorney told the circuit court that he spoke with “some of Mr. Jernigan’s proposed witnesses and determined they woul d not be helpful to his case.” The circuit court denied the continuance request and heard testimony from Angela Goff and a social worker. Then, father te stified. At the time of the hearing, father was incarcerated with approximately five or six months remain ing on his sentence for a probation viol ation due to illegal drug use. He is a convicted felon. Father testified that he has bi polar disorder, for which he is not being treated. Furthermore, father stated that he saw his child once in February 2011 and that he attempted to contact his child once via text message . Otherwise, he has not had contact with the child. He did not appear in the JDR court for a visitation hearing in July 2011. He has not paid child support to the Goffs. He admitted that at the time of the hearin g, the best place for the child was with the Goffs; however, he did no t want to “lose his rights to his son.” After hearing all of the evid ence and argument, the circuit court concluded that father’s consent to the adoption was being un reasonably withheld contrary to the best interests of the child and waived father’s consent to the adoption. This appeal followed.- 3 - ANALYSIS Father argues that the circuit court abus ed its discretion by denying his motion for a continuance and that he was prejudic ed as a result. Father told the circuit cour t that he needed to subpoena his witnesses to court. Father’s coun sel told the circuit cour t that he interviewed “potential witnesses at [father’s] re quest, but found no strategical va lue to calling said witnesses at trial.” The circuit court de nied the continuance request. The decision to grant a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the circuit cour t and must be considered in view of the circumstances unique to each case. The circuit court’s ruling on a motion for a continuance will be rejected on appeal only upon a showing of abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice to the movant. Haugen v. Shenandoah Valley Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 274 Va. 27, 34, 645 S.E.2d 261, 265 (2007). Father has not proven that he was prejudiced as a result of the trial court’s denial of his motion for a continuance. He di d not indicate who his witnesses were nor did he proffer the witnesses’ testimony. Ho wever, father’s counsel told the circ uit court that the witnesses would not have been “helpful” to his case. This Court ne eds to be “able to examine the content of the witness’ expected testimony to determine whether the defendant had suffered prejudice as a result of the denial of his c ontinuance request.” Lowery v. Commonwealth, 9 Va. App. 304, 307, 387 S.E.2d 508, 510 (1990); se e also Gray v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 513, 51 7, 431 S.E.2d 86, 89 (1993). “We cannot reverse if a defendant ‘has shown no prejudice resulting from what he claims was an abuse of discretion’ in granting or denying a continuanc e motion.” Bolden v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 285, 290, 640 S.E.2d 526, 529 (2007) (quoting Quintana v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 127, 135, 295 S.E.2d 643, 646 (1982)).
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the tr ial court’s ruling is affirmed. Affirmed.