Opinion ID: 1768527
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: Prohibition is an appropriate remedy in this case to correct an erroneous interpretation of the UMDDL. As discussed above, section 217.460 did not prevent the trial court from granting defense counsel a continuance over the defendant's objections after it found that counsel's request were reasonable and showed good cause. A reasonable continuance of Johnson's trial date under section 217.460 is permissible and appropriate, as the requirements of section 217.460 were met as the trial court found that Relator Wolfrum established good cause for delay, the request was made in open court, and the offender or his counsel was present. Because a continuance should have been granted to defense counsel, the preliminary writ of prohibition previously issued in this case is made absolute. All concur.