Opinion ID: 1094691
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: whether it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny a continuance.

Text: Dew argues that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant Dew a continuance on the date set for trial. However, Dew's motion for a continuance was not included as a part of the record, and all that this Court knows is that it was filed and before the trial court. Concerning matters not appearing in the record, this Court has held: The burden rested upon appellant to see to it that the record contained all data essential to an understanding and presentation of matters relied upon for reversal on appeal. Willenbrock v. Brown, 239 So.2d 922 (Miss. 1970). This Court may not act upon or consider matters which do not appear in the record and must confine itself to what actually does appear in the record. It must be presumed that the rulings of the trial court were correct, and such presumption will prevail, unless the actual record supports the contrary view. Shelton v. Kindred, 279 So.2d 642, 644 (Miss. 1973). See also Britt v. State, 520 So.2d 1377, 1379 (Miss. 1988) (the Court must decide each case by the facts shown in the record and not by the assertions in the brief). In addition, this assignment of error is unsupported by argument and authority. This Court does not, generally, consider assignments of error unsupported by argument and authority. Ramseur v. State, 368 So.2d 842, 844 (Miss. 1979); accord Smith v. Dorsey, 599 So.2d 529, 532 (Miss. 1992) ([F]ailure to cite any authority can be treated as a procedural bar, and this Court is under no obligation to consider the assignments.). Even if Dew was not procedurally barred from asserting this assignment of error, a trial court has the inherent right to control its trial docket and is afforded reasonable latitude regarding the setting and continuance of cases. Watts v. Pennington, 598 So.2d 1308, 1312 (Miss. 1992) This Court will not reverse the denial of a continuance unless it is satisfied that prejudice resulted. Cherry v. Hawkins, 243 Miss. 392, 397, 137 So.2d 815, 816 (1962). Therefore, especially in light of the fact that the case was set by an agreed order, it does not appear that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Dew's continuance.