Opinion ID: 1146375
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether judge chapman abused his discretion in denying a continuance and proceeding to trial on chisolm's case in his absence.

Text: ¶ 23. In Jackson v. State, 254 So.2d 876, 878 (Miss.1971), this Court noted that a trial judge has broad discretion in granting and refusing continuances and stated: As the trial court has broad discretion as to whether or not a continuance should be granted in the trial of a case and, unless this Court can say from facts shown in the trial that the trial court abused its discretion, or that injustice has been done, the Supreme Court of Mississippi will not disturb the holding of the trial court denying such a motion. See also Boydstun v. Perry, 249 So.2d 661 (Miss.1971); Barnes v. State, 249 So.2d 383 (Miss.1971); Cummings v. State, 219 So.2d 673 (Miss.1969); Bennett v. State, 197 So.2d 886 (Miss.1967). ¶ 24. Further, Miss.Code Ann. § 99-17-9 (Rev.2000) states that: In criminal cases, the presence of the prisoner may be waived, and the trial progress, at the discretion of the court, in his absence, if he be in custody and consenting thereto. If the defendant, in cases less than felony, be on recognizance or bail or have been arrested and escaped, or have been notified by the proper officer of the pendency of the indictment against him, and resisted or fled, or refused to be taken, or 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 court. Id. This statute clearly provides an exception for misdemeanors such as Chisolm's DUI, first offense. This allows a trial judge to proceed with trial. ¶ 25. Chisolm clearly had notice of the pending trial against him. He and his attorney were aware that the continuance had been denied. Judge Chapman, in his discretion, proceeded with the trial in Chisolm's absence, and upon proof, found him guilty and gave him the statutory fine plus costs. Chisolm was not given jail time. As a result, we find that he was not denied his constitutional rights. ¶ 26. We also find that the circuit court erred in ordering Judge Chapman to set aside Chisolm's conviction. This Court has ruled that a denial of continuance by a trial judge will only be set aside if it is shown from the facts of the trial that an injustice has occurred. In this case, no injustice has occurred. Judge Chapman did not abuse his discretion in denying such a continuance nor did he err in proceeding to trial on a misdemeanor charge in the absence of the defendant.