State v. Norman
| Decision Date | 17 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82,82 |
| Citation | 432 So.2d 332 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. James NORMAN. KA 0929. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Ossie B. Brown, Dist. Atty. by Brenda Creswell, Asst. Dist. Atty., Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee.
Georgia G. Wilemon, Asst. Public Defender, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.
Before LOTTINGER, COLE and CARTER, JJ.
Defendant, James Norman, was convicted by jury of having committed simple burglary of a Baton Rouge motel in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:62. He was sentenced to serve one year without hard labor in the custody of the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff. Defendant appeals assigning as error the trial court's denial of his fifth motion for continuance of sentencing. 1
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant him a fifth continuance in sentencing. At the time of his conviction, defendant was apparently suffering from lung cancer. On several occasions he was brought before the trial judge for sentencing and defendant was granted continuances upon recommendation of his physician, apparently because of his problem with cancer. However, on this fifth motion for continuance of sentencing, defendant contended that he was suffering from bronchitis which would require hospitalization and also that he had a doctor's appointment for cancer treatment. The trial court denied his motion and sentenced defendant with the provision that arrangements be made for defendant to be available for all medical appointments he had previously scheduled.
Defendant urges that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing his motion for continuance as provided under the provisions of LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 712. He asserts that his bronchitis constituted good grounds for the trial court to grant a continuance and that the trial court should have considered the added costs to the State in having a defendant with medical problems in its custody. We do not see this as an issue affecting defendant's rights. It is the State's responsibility to provide people in its custody with adequate medical treatment. Apparently, the State has adequately carried out its responsibilities in this case since there are no complaints about medical services provided.
The grant or denial of a motion for continuance rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be disturbed absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion. State v. Huizar, 414 So.2d 741 (La.1982); State v. Long, 408 So.2d 1221 (La.1982); State v. Meredith, 400 So.2d 580 (La.1981). Whether the trial court has exercised its discretion reasonably depends primarily on the facts and circumstances of each case.
An examination of the record clearly reveals no abuse of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Spencer
...discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be disturbed absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion. State v. Norman, 432 So.2d 332 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983). We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion for continuance, although the particular attorney of the publi......