Opinion ID: 2632308
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Defendant's request for an additional six-month continuance of trial

Text: One week after the trial court had granted his motion to represent himself, defendant asked for a 60-day continuance to prepare for trial. The court granted the request and set the trial for April 23, 1990. On March 9, however, defendant asked for an additional six-month continuance. Defendant complained that he had not been put in a pro. per. cell with access to law books and writing implements until February 23; that his former investigator, Thomas, had done little work; and that he did not receive necessary funding until March 13, 1990. The prosecutor pointed out that Attorney Chambers and the new defense investigator, Atwell, had been working on the case for months. Funding of $54,081.25 had been approved on February 7. The court noted that defendant would have the benefit of pretrial motions prepared by Grossberg. It noted also that defendant had been placed in the pro. per. cell 60 days before trial, and that he would probably have at least 90 days before opening statements at the trial. (The actual time before opening statements was 105 days.) The court then denied the request. The granting or denial of a motion for continuance rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. ( People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 660, 286 Cal. Rptr. 801, 818 P.2d 84.) Here considerable work had been done to prepare for trial at the time of defendant's motion, and although much remained to be done, defendant had 60 days remaining in which to prepare. He had funding, an active investigator, and advisory counsel who was familiar with the case. The trial court's ruling was not an abuse of discretion.