Court Opinion

ID: 9764582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:27:58.345185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:58.460453
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RHEARING.
DAVIDSON, Judge.
Appellant insists that under the facts here presented, the trial court abused his discretion in calling this case for trial out of its numerical order.
This insistence is based, primarily, upon the showing made of the large number of cases against appellant and undisposed of on the docket of the court, prior to the instant case both in point of time of the commission of the offense alleged and of the institution of the prosecution, all of which cases appellant insists he was entitled to have disposed of before the trial of this case in order that he be not prejudiced by such fact.
The instant record does not reflect that any reference was made to the other pending cases against appellant, or that the state in any manner utilized the fact that those cases were pending against appellant in obtaining this conviction.
The right is not accorded to the accused to direct when, where, or how he is to be tried for an offense charged against him. Such matters must of necessity rest largely with the state. Errors claimed to have occurred in the exercise of that right by the state must necessarily depend upon a showing of injury resulting from an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
Other matters arising upon the appeal have been examined again and we remain convinced that a correct conclusion was reached originally. The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.