Court Opinion

ID: 9755256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:31:55.51175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:05.684137
License: Public Domain

MACK, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
This case is about an alleged abuse of discretion on the part of a trial court in refusing to grant a continuance — certainly an allegation which triggers support in this court only in rare instances where there may be a resulting denial of due process or a fair trial. See, e.g., Brown v. District of Columbia, 252 A.2d 513, 516 (D.C.1969); Creed v. United States, 156 A.2d 676, 678 (D.C.1959); see O’Connor v. United States, 399 A.2d 21, 28 (D.C.1979); Feaster v. Feaster, 359 A.2d 272, 273 (D.C.1976).
This case is not about the right to counsel, see U.S. CONST, amend. VI (1791); the right to appointed counsel, see Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 513, 82 S.Ct. 884, 889, 8 L.Ed.2d 70 (1962), or the right to counsel of one’s own choice, see Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53, 53 S.Ct. 55, 58, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932). Appellant had counsel. Appellant had appointed counsel. Moreover, despite the strained assumption of the majority, this case is not about the lack of notice to appellant that he would need counsel. At stake was a hearing on the claim that appellant had violated a Civil Protection Order. The order itself, consented to, and signed by appellant on December 21, 1983, stated in capital letters and bold print that “failure to comply with this order may result in fine or imprisonment ” (emphasis added). Given appellant’s consent and the clear pronouncement *316of possible penalties, he must have known that the filing of a claim charging noncompliance with the order, if proven, would subject him to either fine or imprisonment. Indeed, at the hearing for noncompliance, appellant testified that he understood that if he violated the Civil Protection Order he would be subject to imprisonment for six months and a fine of $1,000.
Thus it was that on July 19, 1984, seven months after appellant had signed the Civil Protection Order, Mrs. Thompson had filed a Motion to Adjudicate Contempt in which she alleged that her husband, appellant, “choked [her] with his nails [around] her neck and threw a rock through her bedroom window.” On July 24, 1984, appellant was served personally with a Notice of Hearing and Order to Appear which informed him of the nature of the contempt claim and the date (August 16, 1984) of the the hearing. On this record, the majority’s conclusion that the notice did not indicate that “an adjudication of contempt could result in imprisonment” is farfetched. On the face of the Motion to Adjudicate Contempt, a copy of which was attached to the notice, the relevant code sections (D.C.Code § 16-1001 et seq. (1988 Supp.)) alluding to the Civil Protection Order and the penalty for its violation were cited to provide appellant with notice of the nature of his offense. Appellant was on notice of the possibility of incarceration, and certainly, therefore, was on notice that he should obtain counsel to undertake his representation.
Moreover, this case is not about ineffective assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Monroe v. United States, 389 A.2d 811 (D.C.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1006, 99 S.Ct. 621, 58 L.Ed.2d 683 (1978). While appointed counsel strenuously objected to going to trial, it is not made clear to us how (and the record belies that) counsel was ineffective. We are not told why a continuance would have made any difference. Appellant did not make “a showing that such continuance [was] ‘reasonably necessary for a just determination of the cause.’” O’Connor v. United States, supra, 399 A.2d at 28 (citation omitted).1 Here the facts were straightforward and the issue was narrowly defined (i.e., whether or not appellant violated the Civil Protection Order); appellant, while denying any violent or assaultive conduct directed towards his wife, conceded that he entered his wife’s bedroom (on the date in question); and the trial court, in weighing the credibility of the testimony presented at the hearing, found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant assaulted his wife. “Under D.C.Code § 17-305(a) (1981), our review of such findings is extremely limited: we must treat them as presumptively correct unless they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by the record. ... Moreover, since the trial cpurt heard the testimony and was in a position to evaluate the witnesses’ credibility, we defer to its resolution of conflicts in the testimony.” Auxier v. Kraisel, 466 A.2d 416, 418 (D.C.1983); accord Hummel v. Koehler, 458 A.2d 1187, 1191 (D.C.1983).
Finally and most basically, this case is not about an abuse of discretion. In weighing the factors of appellant’s history of violent conduct towards his wife, the narrowness of the issue, and the simplicity of the facts, the trial court properly considered advance notice in its denial of the continuance. The decision to grant or deny a continuance rests in the sound discretion of the trial court; and in the absence of an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb the court’s decision. See District of Columbia v. Mitchell, 533 A.2d 629, 653 (D.C.1987). The trial court did not err in considering advance notice (i.e., the length of time between the notice of a violation of a protective order and a hearing thereupon). Advance notice was extremely relevant to appellant’s good faith in seeking a continuance for the alleged purpose of obtaining counsel; good faith was crucial to considerations which caused appellant to be placed under the protective order in the first place. The trial court weighed the asserted need for a continuance against the possibili*317ty of physical danger to appellant’s wife.2 There was no abuse of discretion.
I respectfully dissent.

. I note that appellee was not represented by counsel at the contempt hearing.

. The trial court’s concern that there be no further delays in this case appears well-founded. Almost a month had passed after the appellant had allegedly tried to choke his wife before a contempt hearing was held. Moreover, the appellant, as noted, had a history of violent conduct against his wife. As one commentator has concluded, in cases involving domestic violence, "[t]he timing of orders is critical. Studies of wife beating hypothesize a ‘cycle of violence.’ In order to prevent further beatings which are part of the cycle, immediate help may be necessary.” Restraining Order Legislation for Battered Women: A Reassessment, 16 U.S.F. L.Rev. 703, 728 (1982).