Opinion ID: 601431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: claim of abuse of discretion for refusal to grant continuance

Text: 79 This Court held in U.S. v. Mitchell, 765 F.2d 130, 132 (10th Cir.1985): 80 The decision to grant or deny a motion for continuance is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. His decision will be reversed on appeal only upon a showing of clear abuse of discretion resulting in manifest injustice. 81 And, as stated in U.S. v. Rivera, 900 F.2d 1462, 1475 (10th Cir.1990): 82 A trial judge's decision to deny a motion for a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion only if the denial was arbitrary or unreasonable and materially prejudiced the [defendant]. 83 The appellant, in support of his contention that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant his motion for a continuance, states that his trial counsel had been diligent in his trial preparation until such time as he became ill and that prior to that time defendant had conducted significant discovery and had filed a number of motions. Brief of Appellant, p. 30. 84 However, appellant has a problem. The trial court granted the continuance, moving the trial from July 9, 1990, to September 17, 1990, a postponement in excess of two months. When the government makes this point in its brief, appellant returns to his argument that the trial court erred in refusing to permit him to file a bill of particulars. We have already dealt with that contention. See under Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim, supra.