Opinion ID: 1133622
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Court's Denial of Defendant's Motion for a Continuance

Text: The jury returned its penalty verdict on June 22, 1989. At the scheduled hearing on July 7, 1989, on the automatic motion for modification of the death penalty, defendant asked for a continuance, because defense counsel wanted to confer with co-counsel regarding a report he had received the preceding day from an investigator who had interviewed some of the jurors. The court granted the request and continued the hearing on the motion and sentencing to July 18. At the July 18 hearing, defendant orally requested another continuance to allow time to prepare and file a motion for new trial based in part upon juror misconduct. The investigation indicated that Juror No. 6 had reported that Juror No. 10 told several jurors during the guilt phase that Juror No. 10 had spoken with the judge about taking time off from work because the juror's coworkers had been asking her questions about the case. Juror No. 10 allegedly stated that the judge said the case already had cost $200,000, and that the judge did not want a mistrial to occur. Defendant requested a continuance to interview Juror No. 10 and other jurors regarding Juror No. 6's allegations, and also to ascertain whether Juror No. 6 would sign an affidavit repeating her allegations. The prosecutor opposed a continuance, noting among other things that defendant had not requested a continuance pursuant to section 1050, which requires at least two days' written notice. After stating that he never discussed the question of the cost of the trial with any juror, and that he saw no grounds for a new trial, the trial judge denied the request for a continuance. Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a continuance, that the court acted improperly by personally denying the allegation of ex parte contact with a juror and failing to assign the matter to an impartial judge, and that the court's action in this regard resulted in a deprivation of defendant's constitutional right to have competent counsel prepare and present a defense. We find no error in the court's denial of the request for a continuance. As defendant acknowledges, section 1050, subdivision (b), requires that written notice of a motion for a continuance be filed and served at least two court days before the hearing. If the moving party does not comply with this notice requirement, the court must deny the motion unless, after a hearing, it finds there is good cause for the failure to comply and states on the record facts justifying its finding. (§ 1050, subd. (d); People v. Jones, supra, 17 Cal.4th 279, 318, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 793, 949 P.2d 890.) A continuance will be granted for good cause (§ 1050, subd. (e)), and the trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny the request. [Citations.] In determining whether a denial was so arbitrary as to deny due process, the appellate court looks to the circumstances of each case and to the reasons presented for the request. [Citations.] One factor to consider is whether a continuance would be useful. [Citation.] ( People v. Frye, supra, 18 Cal.4th 894, 1012-1013, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183.) Defendant makes no serious attempt to establish good cause for his failure to comply with the notice requirements of section 1050, subdivision (b). He states: On July 18, 1989, defense counsel indicated for the first time, that they discovered there was improper contact between Juror No. 10 and the court. Defendant avers, in addition, that as soon as the defense team discovered this information, the court was informed. To the extent defendant suggests that defense counsel did not learn of Juror No. 6's allegations until the July 18 hearing, his suggestion is contradicted by the record. Even before the defense investigator interviewed any jurors, Juror No. 6 had reported her allegations directly to defense counsel. Defense counsel subsequently received the investigator's report on July 6  almost two weeks before the July 18 hearing. At the hearing on the motion to continue, defense counsel did not indicate that he just had discovered the information, but stated only that he needed more time to investigate the allegations of misconduct. Counsel offered no excuse for failing to provide two days' notice to the prosecution, nor did he provide an account of any investigation undertaken between July 7 and July 18 or explain why the jurors could not have been interviewed and affidavits prepared before the July 18 hearing. In the absence of any justification in the record for the failure to prepare a timely motion for a continuance or for new trial, we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance. Nor did the trial judge err in ruling on the motion for a continuance instead of assigning the matter to another judge. Even if the judge had some obligation to disqualify himself from ruling on a new trial motion because he might have been a material witness regarding that motion (see Code Civ. Proc, § 170.1, subd. (a)(1)), he still properly could deny a continuance for failure to comply with applicable notice requirements. Defendant contends, in the alternative, that defense counsel was ineffective in presenting the motion to continue, failing to seek disqualification of the trial judge, and failing to file a motion for new trial. Because the appellate record does not establish that, absent counsel's allegedly deficient performance, it is reasonably probable the trial court would have granted a motion for a continuance, we reject his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on that failure. (See Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674; In re Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 945, 950, 13 Cal. Rptr.2d 269, 838 P.2d 1222.) We reject defendant's claims of ineffective assistance based upon counsel's failure to file motions for disqualification and a new trial, because the appellate record does not establish that counsel performed deficiently by failing to make such motions, or that such motions likely would have been granted. ( People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-268, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 437, 933 P.2d 1134.)