State v. Licari

A denial for a continuance is measured on an abuse of discretion standard, while looking at the particular circumstances of the case and the reasons presented to the court at the time of denial.

Timothy Jerome Licari (Licari) appealed his judgment of conviction by assigning error to the trial court for denying his motion for a continuance made on the morning of the trial. Licari was arrested while intoxicated and belligerent. His behavior escalated during transport and continued at the jail. Licari was charged with resisting arrest, attempted assault of an officer, second-degree criminal mischief, and second-degree disorderly conduct. Defendant was arraigned and assigned counsel the next day. At a scheduling conference, the defense attorney received an extra week to prepare before trial. Later, Licari requested another continuance and was denied. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the denial for continuance was not an abuse of discretion. The standard of review for the denial of a continuance is based on the particular circumstances of the case and the reasons presented to the court at the time of denial. Defense counsel said he did not consider a defense based on possible PTSD and a lack of criminal intent until meeting with Licari the day before the trial. But , defense counsel had two months to prepare and observe the video of the Licari's behavior and had been able to communicate with the Licari on multiple occasions. The defense counsel failed to request a continuance at an earlier time, such as the pretrial docket call. The issues raised by the defense counsel were reasonably avoidable. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Affirmed.