Singh

DISCUSSION

1. The trial court did not err in denying Singh’s request to continue the trial. A motion to continue a trial is left to the sound discretion of the court. (Oliveros v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1395.) Singh claims he requested a continuance at the beginning of the trial for two reasons. First, he asserts he was physically unwell. However, there is absolutely no evidence in the record to support this allegation. Singh also contends a continuance was necessary because of his unforeseen lack of counsel. Again, the record does not support Singh’s claim. Singh’s counsel withdrew on July 9, 2014, and the case was not tried until November 18, 2014, over four months later. Thus, lack of counsel was not unforeseen. Singh has the burden to show reversible error by an adequate record. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574-575.) He has not done so here. On appeal, we presume the trial court’s ruling is correct and, on matters as to which the record is silent, we indulge all presumptions in favor of that correctness. (Ellis v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 853, 889 (Ellis).) Therefore, we must

2. presume the…