What is a motion to continue?
A motion to continue is a motion to postpone your hearing or trial. This motion can be very important if your attorney is not yet ready to proceed to the hearing or trial.
- The California Penal Code Requires A Continuance Upon The Showing of Good Cause
Penal Code section 1050 is unambiguous. “Continuances shall be granted only upon a showing of good cause.” (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (e).) The California Supreme Court has articulated the well-settled standard of review as follows: “While the determination of whether in any given case a continuance should be granted ‘normally rests in the discretion of the trial court’ (People v. Buckowski (1951) 37 Cal.2d 629, 631 [233 P.2d 912]), that discretion may not be exercised in such a manner as to deprive the defendant of a reasonable opportunity to prepare his defense.” (People v. Murphy (1963) 59 Cal.2d 818, 825 [31 Cal.Rptr. 306, 382 P.2d 346].) “[A] myopic insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay can render the right to defend with counsel an empty formality.” (People v. Butcher (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 63, 69-70 [79 Cal.Rptr. 618] [brackets added; citations omitted].) The California Supreme Court has cautioned that a judge’s “goal of expediting the adjudication of cases …, though laudable, should not blind [a judge] to the fundamental elements of a fair criminal proceeding,” and should not “outweigh a defendant’s right to a fair trial ….” (McCullough v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1989) 49 Cal.3d 186, 195, 196 [260 Cal.Rptr. 557].) “On June 9, 2020, Division Four of this District denied a petition for writ of mandate filed by a defendant claiming violation of his statutory speedy trial rights under section 1382. (Stanley v. Superior Court (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 164 [263 Cal. Rptr. 3d 735] (Stanley).) As noted in Stanley, supra, “ ‘A contrary holding would require trial court personnel, jurors, and witnesses to be exposed to debilitating and perhaps life-threatening illness. Public health concerns trump the right to a speedy trial.’ (Id. at p. 1314.)” (Stanley v. Superior Court (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 164, 169 [263 Cal.Rptr.3d 735].)
2. An Accused Has The Right To Effective Assistance of Counsel
The Supreme Court of California has stated in no uncertain terms:
“It cannot be doubted that the right to counsel guaranteed by both the federal and state Constitutions includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel ( United States v. Cronic (1984) U.S. , [80 L.Ed.2d 657, 669, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 2044]; Strickland v. Washington (1984) U.S. , [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064]; McMann v. Richardson (1970) 397 U.S. 759, 771, fn. 14 [25 L.Ed.2d 763, 773, 90 S.Ct. 1441]; People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 581-583 [189 Cal.Rptr. 855, 659 P.2d 1144]; Keenan v. Superior Court (1982) supra, 31 Cal.3d 424, 428; People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 423-425 [152 Cal.Rptr. 732, 590 P.2d 859, 2 A.L.R.4th 1]), and thus also includes the right to reasonably necessary ancillary defense services. ( Keenan, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 428 [‘The right to effective counsel also includes the right to ancillary services necessary in the preparation of a defense’]; In re Ketchel (1968) 68 Cal.2d 397, 399-400 [438 P.2d 625] [‘‘A fundamental part of the constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel is that his attorney . . . is obviously entitled to the aid of such expert assistance as he may need . . . in preparing the defense’’]; Puett v. Superior Court (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 936, 938-939 [158 Cal.Rptr. 266] [‘the right to counsel encompasses the right to effective counsel which in turn encompasses the right of an indigent and his appointed counsel to have the services of an investigator’]; People v. Faxel (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 327, 330 [154 Cal.Rptr. 132] [‘The due process right of effective counsel includes the right to ancillary services necessary in the preparation of a defense’]; cf. Mason v. State of Arizona (9th Cir. 1974) 504 F.2d 1345, 1351 [‘the effective assistance of counsel guarantee of the Due Process Clause requires, when necessary, the allowance of investigative expenses or appointment of investigative assistance for indigent defendants’].)”
(Corenevsky v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 307, 319-320 [204 Cal.Rptr. 165, 682 P.2d 360] [bold added].)
3. An Accused Has A Constitutional Right To Put On A Defense
An accused has a constitutional right to present exculpatory evidence. (Chambers v. Mississippi (1973) 410 U.S. 284, 299-302; Washington v. Texas (1967) 388 U.S. 14.) The Ninth Circuit has reversed several convictions for California Courts failure to allow the defendant to put on a defense. (See e.g., Mordick v. Valenzuela (9th Cir. 2019) 780 F.App’x 430, 432 [“We do conclude, however, that Mordick is entitled to habeas relief based on the trial court’s limitation of Bonnie Pioch’s testimony, in violation of Mordick’s due process right to present a defense. See Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302, 93 S. Ct. 1038, 35 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1973)].) In addition, the California Supreme Court has reversed convictions for failure to allow defense expert testimony. (People v. Stoll (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1136, 1140 [265 Cal.Rptr. 111, 783 P.2d 698].)