Opinion ID: 2542749
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the trial court erred when it failed to grant defendant's motion for continuance.

Text: ¶ 4. Moore asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant the motion for continuance he requested on the date of trial. The State asserts that Moore is procedurally barred from raising this issue because it was not raised in a motion for new trial. Alternatively, the State asserts that this issue is without merit. The State is correct. ¶ 5. In Metcalf v. State, 629 So.2d 558 (Miss.1993), this Court said: On a motion for a new trial, certain errors must be brought to the attention of the trial judge so that he may have an opportunity to pass upon their validity before this Court is called upon to review them. Weyen v. Weyen, 165 Miss. 257, 139 So. 608 (1932). For example, the denial of a continuance in the trial court is not reviewable unless the party whose motion for continuance was denied makes a motion for a new trial on this ground. Metcalf, 629 So.2d at 561-62. ¶ 6. The record does not indicate that Moore ever filed a motion for new trial. Therefore, this issue is procedurally barred. Notwithstanding the procedural bar, Moore's assertion is without merit. In Conway v. State, 915 So.2d 521 (Miss. 2005), Conway's attorney filed a motion for continuance five days before trial on the grounds that he was unprepared for trial. This Court has said: A circuit court judge has wide discretion in deciding whether to grant a continuance, and the denial of a motion for continuance will not be reversed absent a showing of substantial prejudice or manifest injustice. Simmons v. State, 805 So.2d 452, 484 (¶ 72) (Miss.2002). The moving party bears the burden of establishing prejudice. Wilson v. State, 755 So.2d 2, 5 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.1999). Conway offers no proof that his attorney at trial was unprepared or that he was prejudiced from his attorney's lack of preparation. This issue is without merit. Conway, 915 So.2d at 525. ¶ 7. In the instant case, Moore's attorney moved for a continuance on the date of trial, saying that she was not prepared because she had been busy with other cases. The trial court denied the motion, noting that counsel had known of the trial setting for some four months. On appeal, Moore's counsel asserts that the trial court erred in not granting the continuance because the State had not yet propounded discovery. Specifically, counsel is referring to audiotapes of statements. The record shows that counsel was provided copies of the tapes and the accompanying transcript, but that the tapes were blank. However, counsel was not certain that the tapes were blank until she attempted to listen to the tapes enroute to the courthouse on the date of trial. Further, counsel did not notify the District Attorney's office of the problem until the date of trial. Moreover, the trial court recessed the proceeding so counsel could listen to the tape in question, Moore's statement, which was approximately fifteen minutes in length, and compare it to the previously provided transcript. Finally, counsel was given an opportunity to cross-examine Holmes County Sheriff's Deputy Chief Roosevelt March regarding the content of the tape and the accompanying transcript. ¶ 8. We find that Moore has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for continuance. Further, Moore has failed to establish any showing of substantial prejudice.