The People v. Mason CA3

DISCUSSION

I

The Trial Court Did Not Violate Defendant’s Constitutional Rights In Denying His

Request For A Continuance To Attempt To Obtain Private Counsel

Defendant‟s primary contention is that the trial court violated his constitutional

rights because it “arbitrarily” denied his request for a continuance. He argues that the

denial was arbitrary because, “[N]either the prosecution nor the court offered any reason

[for the denial] other than the prosecutor‟s right to a timely preliminary hearing.” He also

complains that the court made no “effort to justify the denial.”

Section 1050 governs continuances. The moving party must be able to show good

cause for the continuance. (§ 1050, subd. (d).) Due diligence must be shown in order to

meet the requirement of good cause. (See People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 958.)

On appeal, “[t]he trial court‟s denial of a motion for continuance is reviewed for abuse of

discretion.” (Id. at p. 1037.) The case of People v. Courts (1985) 37 Cal.3d 784 (Courts)

is an example of good cause and due diligence.

In Courts, our Supreme Court ruled that the trial court should have granted the

defendant‟s request for a continuance…