Opinion ID: 1111189
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: the lower court erred in overruling appellant's motion for continuance, violating appellant's rights under the sixth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments to the united states constitutions and sections 14, 26 and 28 of the mississippi constitution.

Text: Two weeks before the trial commenced, Pinkney filed a second motion for continuance. The trial judge heard defense counsel's testimony on this issue and then denied the motion. Pinkney charges that the denial of this motion deprived him of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to compulsory process of witnesses, Hicks v. Wainwright, 633 F.2d 1146 (5th Cir.1981), and his Fourteenth Amendment and Section 14 rights to due process. See Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 93 S.Ct. 351, 34 L.Ed.2d 330 (1972). The matter of a continuance is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Gates v. State, 484 So.2d 1002 (Miss. 1986). We note that Pinkney does not (and did not) allege with any specificity the particular reasons why he should have been granted a continuance. Pursuant to Section 99-15-29, Mississippi Code Annotated (1972), and Gates, supra, a denial of the continuance shall not be grounds for reversal unless the Supreme Court shall be satisfied that an injustice resulted therefrom. Section 99-15-29 (1972). See also, Billiot v. State, 454 So.2d 445, 454-455 (Miss. 1984). From the evidence submitted at the pre-trial motion hearing and the evidence at the motion for new trial nothing appears to cause this Court to believe that the denial of the continuance caused Pinkney's trial to be fundamentally unfair. There was no abuse of discretion and no injustice resulted therefrom. Therefore, this assignment is without merit.