Opinion ID: 1772873
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Recusal and continuance

Text: Appellant argues that he was prejudiced by the trial court's denial of his motion to recuse. Prior to the Rule 37 hearing, appellant requested that the trial judge recuse because of complaints filed against him and moved for a continuance to prepare for the Rule 37 hearing. The trial court denied both motions. The court addressed appellant's motion to recuse, stating that he was not biased and that he would not let the complaints affect his consideration of the Rule 37 action. There is a presumption of impartiality on the part of judges. Black v. Van Steenwyk, 333 Ark. 629, 970 S.W.2d 280 (1998). The decision to recuse is within the trial court's discretion and will not be reversed absent abuse. Trimble v. State, 336 Ark. 437, 986 S.W.2d 392 (1999). The question of bias is usually confined to the conscience of the judge. Black, supra ; Dolphin v. Wilson, 328 Ark. 1, 942 S.W.2d 815 (1997). An abuse of discretion can be shown by proving bias or prejudice. Massongill v. County of Scott, 337 Ark. 281, 991 S.W.2d 105 (1999); Trimble, supra . To decide whether there was an abuse of discretion, we review the record to see if any prejudice or bias was exhibited. Black, supra ; Dolphin v. Wilson, supra . Although it was alleged that the trial judge was the target of a judicial ethics inquiry, appellant has not included these complaints in the record before us. Appellant has not alleged any specific instances of bias, nor has he shown any way that he was prejudiced by the judge's denial of his motion to recuse. Moreover, this point does not address any of the fundamental issues appropriate for a Rule 37 proceeding. However, it challenges the conduct of the hearing itself, and upon examination of the conduct of the Rule 37 hearing, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion. Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in denying his Rule 37 motion for a continuance because he did not have adequate time to review all possible Rule 37 issues. The law is well established that the granting or denial of a motion for continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and that court's decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion amounting to a denial of justice. Dirickson v. State, 329 Ark. 572, 953 S.W.2d 55 (1997). Appellant must show prejudice from the denial of the continuance, and when a motion for continuance is based on a lack of time to prepare, we will consider the totality of the circumstances; the burden of showing prejudice is on the appellant. Davis v. State, 318 Ark. 212, 885 S.W.2d 292 (1994). Finally, the court has also held that a lack of diligence alone is sufficient cause to deny a continuance. Id. In the present case, appellant has failed to demonstrate prejudice from the court's denial of his continuance under Davis, supra. Appellant's Rule 37 attorney was appointed to represent appellant on May 2, 1999, and the Rule 37 hearing was scheduled for June 29, 1999. Appellant's attorney had approximately two months to familiarize himself with the case. Appellant merely argues that appellant's counsel did not have enough time to review the record, and that they were forced to rely upon the work of his previous attorneys. The trial court exercised its discretion in finding that approximately two months is ample time to prepare for a Rule 37 hearing. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion. Dirickson, supra . Appellant also argues that the trial court committed error in denying his motion for continuance on the grounds that his attorney, Mr. Huggins, was not allowed time to become certified by the Public Defender Commission to handle this death-penalty case, as required by Ark. R.Crim. P. 37.5. Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.5(c)(5) specifies that [a]t least one of the attorneys shall meet the standards of (c)(1) or (c)(4). Id. We note that Mr. Huggins's co-counsel, Charles Duell, was qualified to represent defendants in death-penalty cases. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on this point.