AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. Following an appeal that led to a reversal and remand for reconsideration of a continuance request, the district court reviewed and denied the request again. The Defendant appealed this decision, challenging the denial of the continuance.

Procedural History

• Previous Appeal: The appellate court reversed and remanded for reconsideration of a continuance request, which the district court had initially denied (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the district court improperly presumed against granting the requested continuance by referencing the local rule and good cause for extension of deadlines. Argued that this was in tension with the appellate court's prior concerns. Challenged the district court's assessment of the first, fifth, and seventh factors from a previous relevant case, arguing for a narrow focus on the request for a brief delay, disputing the characterization of seeking delay, and asserting that denial of the opportunity to pursue counsel of choice was per se prejudicial (paras 3-4, 6-7).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court improperly presumed against granting the requested continuance by referencing the local rule and good cause for extension of deadlines.
• Whether the district court erred in its assessment of the first, fifth, and seventh factors from a previous relevant case in denying the continuance request.

Disposition

• The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the Defendant's request for a continuance (para 9).

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Jennifer L. Attrep and Briana H. Zamora concurring, the appellate court found no error in the district court's decision. It rejected the Defendant's contention that the district court improperly presumed against granting the continuance, noting that the district court's analysis was thorough and thoughtful, particularly in relation to the relevant factors from a precedent case. The appellate court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments regarding the narrow focus on the delay request, the improper purpose of delaying proceedings, and the denial of the opportunity to pursue counsel of choice. It concluded that the Defendant failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the district court in denying the continuance request (paras 2-8).