Court Opinion

ID: 9721575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:02:39.065567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:27.343237
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(dissenting). Division 1 concluded (26 Mich App 46, 51):
“The only issue presented is whether the trial court committed reversible error in denying defense counsel’s motion to withdraw, and in failing to grant a continuance. ‘It is well accepted in this State that the granting of a continuance rests with the sound discretion of the trial court.’ McKay v Black (1967), 5 Mich App 711, 713, 714. See also, Annotation, 66 ALR2d 298. On the record presented in this case, we find no abuse of discretion. There liad been numerous prior delays in bringing this matter to trial. Moreover, a defendant is not entitled to substitute counsel indefinitely and thereby continue to thwart the fair administration of justice. People v Fleisher (1948), 322 Mich 474. The record reveals that defendant was ably represented at trial and was *579not prejudiced by the trial court’s denial of the motion.”
I agree and therefore vote to affirm.
Adams, J., concurred with Black, J.