Opinion ID: 1855720
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether error exists in the court denying stidham's motion for continuance.

Text: ¶ 12. When Stidham failed to appear for trial, his counsel informed the court of Stidham's absence and that he had written to Stidham several times advising him of his trial setting. Nevertheless, Stidham, contacted the morning of the trial by telephone, asked his counsel to request a continuance as he claimed did not have notice of the trial date. Finding that Stidham's failure to appear was either Stidham's fault or his counsel's, the court denied the motion. Stidham contends that the trial court's denial of his motion constitutes an abuse of discretion. ¶ 13. Section 99-17-9 states in pertinent part that [i]f a defendant, in a case less than a felony, ... be in any way in default for nonappearance, the trial may progress at the discretion of the court, and judgment final and sentence be awarded as though such defendant were personally present in the court. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-17-9 (1994). In Jones v. State, 204 Miss. 284, 285, 37 So.2d 311, 311 (1948), we stated that [i]n a trial for a misdemeanor, the accused may, by his own fault or misconduct, waive his right to be present. ¶ 14. For the trial court to be found in error for denying a motion for continuance, the defendant must clearly demonstrate an abuse of discretion. Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d 777, 786 (Miss.1997). As this is a dispute between Stidham and his counsel over whether Stidham had notice of trial, Stidham fails to clearly demonstrate an abuse of discretion in the trial court's denying his motion for continuance. Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.