Court Opinion

ID: 9771450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:43:58.501973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:31.597556
License: Public Domain

Motion for Rehearing
DICE, Judge.
*136In his motion for rehearing, appellant again urges as error the court’s action in overruling his subsequent motion for a continuance and points out that in our original opinion we passed upon his contention that the court erred in overruling the motion because of the absence of a witness but did not specifically pass upon his contention that the court erred in overruling that portion of the motion which sought a continuance on the ground that appellant had been unable to employ counsel until such time and that they did not have sufficient time to prepare for trial.
As was shown in our original opinion, appellant was arrested on July 22, 1959 and the indictment was returned against him on September 9. Between the time of his arrest and the date that he employed present counsel on December 3, 1959, appellant employed three separate attorneys, who, after being employed, withdrew as counsel in the case. The last of the three attorneys employed withdrew on November 22. On October 15, appellant’s first application for continuance was granted because of the physical incapacity of counsel then representing him, and the case was reset for trial on December 7, the date the same proceeded to trial. Appellant was on bail from the date of his arrest up to and including the time of his trial.
Appellant’s subsequent motion for continuance was an equitable motion and one addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Wiley v. State, 159 Tex. Cr. R. 297, 263 S.W. 2d 568 and Gordy v. State, 160 Tex. Cr. R. 201, 268 S.W. 2d 126.
Under the record no abuse of discretion is shown. Richardson v. State, 164 Tex. Cr. R. 654, 302 S.W. 2d 140.
We have again reviewed the record in the light of appellant’s other contentions and remain convinced that they were properly disposed of in our opinion on original submission.
. The motion, for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.