Opinion ID: 202527
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of the Motion for Continuance

Text: 19 We evaluate the trial court's denial of Gaffney's motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Allen, 789 F.2d 90, 92 (1st Cir.1986). Here, the court extensively investigated Gaffney's concerns, questioning Gaffney's attorney, inviting Gaffney to speak for himself, and granting Gaffney a second opportunity to address the court after the court declared its preliminary findings. We describe the particulars. 20 The district court first questioned Gaffney's counsel. McEnaney indicated that Gaffney felt his counsel had not done everything on his behalf to help him; Gaffney had a problem with the ten-years sentence and was concerned with the effect of his prior convictions on sentencing. Having found nothing of sufficient particularity in this response, the court turned directly to Gaffney. 21 Gaffney first expressed frustration at Connors' absence from the plea hearing. Having ascertained from McEnaney that Connors was, in fact, ready to try the case, the court assured Gaffney that his lawyers were prepared to go to trial and explained that McEnaney's substitution for Connors doesn't mean that Mr. Connors is not prepared to try this case. Lawyers help each other out in this way all the time. It's not a reason to fire your lawyer and hire somebody new and delay the trial date. Gaffney also complained that he had no paperwork on his case. The court probed this complaint in a lengthy colloquy: 22 THE COURT: So you think that your lawyer should have brought you some papers or something? 23 MR. GAFFNEY: Papers on my case. I don't got nothing on my case saying — I don't even got what I'm charged with. I don't even got that where I'm at. Everytime he comes out he brings his paperwork. He says, `I'm going to bring yours next time. They never faxed it to me . . . .' 24 THE COURT: Okay. All right. You've had a chance to review the indictment against you, right? The written charge against you? You've seen that, haven't you? 25 MR. GAFFNEY: Yeah, they read it to me in court . . . 26 THE COURT: Okay. And the plea agreement, you signed the plea agreement? 27 MR. GAFFNEY: Yeah, he read — he didn't even read that. They read that to us. He said `You could trust me.' 28 THE COURT: Excuse me? I didn't understand that. 29 MR GAFFNEY: When they came up with the plea agreement, we didn't read it. They read it to us. And he said, `You could trust me.' I'm thinking he's telling me, yeah, you signed up for ten years. Then we come to court, now it's 20. 30 After hearing from the government's attorney, the court concluded: I haven't heard anything that convinces me that I should grant a motion to withdraw 5 and grant you a continuance to obtain new counsel. Because the information is going to be exactly the same with the new lawyer. The court then granted Gaffney's request to address the court a second time. Gaffney again complained of Connors' absence and his lack of paperwork, lamenting that he could have went to the law library, looked up similar cases to mine . . . . I didn't get a chance to do that. My lawyer didn't do that for me. The court responded that looking up similar cases might make you feel a little better, but it isn't going to make the difference. Gaffney then complained that he had only been locked up for two months, and I'm already going to trial. . . . I feel like you are rushing me into . . . signing my life away. Indeed, Gaffney repeatedly made clear his unhappiness with the pace of events. Allowed to address the court again, he said: Your honor, I feel like you are . . . forcing me into . . . going to trial. I don't want to go to trial. I just don't want my lawyer. When the court invited counsel to state any reason why this matter should not go to trial next week, Gaffney intruded with another insistence that I don't want to go to trial. The court's lengthy and thorough inquiry of Gaffney got to the bottom of his unhappiness with his attorney. The problem was not his attorney. Instead, Gaffney did not like the unpleasant message about his sentencing exposure, and he did not like the rapid movement toward trial. 31 Moreover, the record indicates that Gaffney was communicating with his lawyers before he signed the plea agreement, before the December 27 hearing, and during the two days before the December 29 hearing. In addition, the absence of any motion to withdraw by Gaffney's counsel and subsequent events also belie any failure of communication between Gaffney and his counsel. 32 The court twice mentioned that counsel had not filed a motion to withdraw, indicating that if counsel files such a motion, I'll hear it, and noting that these lawyers are professionals. The court added: if either of them felt . . . they were not ready to go to trial, they would — they have an ethical duty to tell me that, and I'll deal with it. But I don't have any reason to believe that. From counsel's perspective and from the court's, there apparently was no communication problem between attorney and client precluding continued representation and thus no justification for granting a continuance.