Opinion ID: 1706434
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying Boone's Motion for Continuance based on the substitution of counsel.

Text: ¶ 13. The decision to grant or deny a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless the decision results in manifest injustice. Ross v. State, 954 So.2d 968, 1007 (Miss.2007) (citation omitted). ¶ 14. Boone was initially represented by a Hinds County assistant public defender in this matter, but he subsequently hired an attorney. Boone submits the trial court erred by denying his Motion for Continuance as he obtained this new counsel a few weeks prior to trial. The record contains an Agreed Order Allowing Counsel to Withdraw and Substituting Counsel for the Defendant filed one month prior to trial. ¶ 15. However, after thorough review of the clerk's papers and transcript, this Court did not find a motion for continuance, written or oral, made by Boone and further did not find the denial of same. At the start of trial, the State asked to have one extra day to review witness testimony, but was denied. When asked if the Defense was prepared to go forward, counsel for Boone responded, yes. ¶ 16. We have on many occasions held that we must decide each case by the facts shown in the record, not assertions in the brief, however sincere counsel may be in those assertions. Facts asserted to exist must and ought to be definitely proved and placed before us by a record, certified by law; otherwise, we cannot know them. Barnwell v. State, 702 So.2d 132, 1997 Miss. LEXIS 495, 7-8 (Miss. October 9, 1997). ¶ 17. There is no evidence in the record of a motion for continuance. Therefore, this issue has no merit.