Miller v. State

The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for a continuance, because his new trial counsel took the case with knowledge of the trial date and an understanding that defendant did not want a continuance, trial counsel announced ready for trial and the facts were neither complex nor convoluted.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, Gary Darrell Miller was convicted of six counts of aggravated assault1 and four counts of felony obstruction of an officer.2 He now appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial, asserting that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance. Discerning no error, we affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, Culver v. State, 3 the evidence shows that on June 25, 2001, officers with the Douglasville Police Department went to Miller’s home, after Douglasville 911 received a “hang-up” call from the residence. Although standard policy required police to investigate such calls, Miller was uncooperative and aggressive towards the officers, and told them to leave the premises. When Miller continued to interfere with police attempts to investigate the reason for the 911 call, including their attempts to speak with his wife, the officers initiated Miller’s arrest for disorderly conduct. He then assaulted all three officers, first with a pipe-bending tool and then with a child’s scooter. The officers eventually subdued and arrested Miller, and he was subsequently charged with the crimes of which he was convicted.

Miller’s trial was originally scheduled for the week of August 8, 2005. On August 4, 2005, his attorney filed both a motion for a continuance and a motion seeking to withdraw as Miller’s counsel. The trial court granted the former motion but denied the latter, and trial was rescheduled for the week of November 28, 2005. New counsel filed an entry of appearance in the case on November 28 and the case was called for trial on November 30. At the call of the case, defense counsel announced ready for trial. Following a recess, however, defense counsel stated: “I was just talking to my client and I indicated that I’d probably be needing a continuance because I just got hired less than 48 hours ago, but he states that he would rather go forward today and I at least want to put that on the record. Is that correct, Mr. Miller, you had rather go forward today” Miller responded, “Yes, sir.”

Miller v. State

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report