☢ test - Í

court granted a certificate pursuant to OCGA § 24–10–94 (2012) to permit the defense an opportunity to obtain the information and witnesses sought from CMI, specially set the case with enough time for the defense to do so, and after the Kentucky court issued an order denying Phillips's request for the information, which order was entitled to full faith and credit, required Phillips to proceed to trial. [FN25. We note that at the time of trial, the case had been pending for more than six years, and defense counsel had filed approximately twenty leaves of absence. ] ” Janasik v. State, 323 Ga.App. 545, 746 S.E.2d 208 (July 9, 2013). DUI conviction affirmed; no error in failing to grant continuance where defense expert failed to appear for trial. “The record indicates that Janasik's counsel informed the trial court at around 5 p.m. [fn] on the first day of trial that his expert witness would not be available to testify the following day because he was scheduled to speak at an out-of-town seminar. The trial court agreed to try to accommodate the defense by allowing the witness to testify electronically if the defense attorney could meet the trial court's requirements for connectivity and a picture that the court felt ‘was adequate for the jury to assess his testimony.’ Janasik's trial counsel later testified that, at that point, he released Citron from his subpoena with the understanding that he would be available to give his testimony electronically.” Defendant failed to show entitlement to a continuance: “Janasik's counsel conceded at the motion hearing that he released Dr. Citron from his subpoena after the first day of trial. Moreover, Jansik failed to establish Dr. Citron's place of residency or his availability by the next term of court. And although Janasik's counsel indicated that they could not win the case without his testimony and they had built their entire defense around him, he failed to provide the trial court with the facts he expected Dr. Citron's testimony to prove. He stated only that Dr. Citron's testimony ‘wrapped up the testimony of [the defense's other expert] and the video as well as Trooper Collins as well as the medical records that we procured for purposes of him to review [that] predated—this incident,’ without providing the court any indication of the content of his testimony. [fn] Accordingly, Janasik failed to establish for the trial court that Dr. Citron's testimony was material. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for continuance. Bailey v. State, [309 Ga.App. 473, 474-475, 710 S.E.2d 656 (2011)].” “Additionally, we find that the trial court lacked authority to compel Dr. Citron's attendance once Janasik's counsel had released him from his subpoena. See generally Schramm v. State, 286 Ga.App. 156, 158(2), 648 S.E.2d 392 (2007) (trial court cannot compel witness in absence of subpoena).” Daniels v. State, 321 Ga.App. 748, 743 S.E.2d 440 (May 14, 2013). DUI and related convictions affirmed; no abuse of discretion in denying defense motion for continuance where defendant claimed his mother was a necessary witness who had had a stroke the day before trial and was hospitalized. “Daniels admittedly did not meet the requirements of OCGA § 17–8–25 because he did not subpoena his mother. And he presented nothing to show that she was in fact hospitalized and unable to appear in court.” And in any event no prejudice to defendant because defendant was able to explore the issue to be addressed by the mother’s testimony – the alleged bias of defendant’s former girlfriend, a State’s witness – through cross of the girlfriend. Whorton v. State, 318 Ga.App. 885, 735 S.E.2d 7 (November 29, 2012). Convictions for enticing a child, child molestation and related offenses affirmed; no abuse of discretion in denying motion for continuance. “Whorton's trial counsel was hired forty days prior to trial after his original attorney had to withdraw suddenly from the case after being arrested on charges of child molestation. Prior to agreeing to represent Whorton and filing an entry of appearance, Whorton's trial counsel was notified of the trial date during a phone conference with the trial judge and the prosecutor. Whorton's trial counsel sought a continuance at that time, but the trial court denied her motion. The week prior to trial, Whorton's trial counsel contacted the trial court and informed the court that she was ready to proceed. However, trial counsel then filed a motion for continuance citing difficulties finding an expert witness willing to testify in support of Whorton's key defense, that his diabetes-related complications left him unable to engage in sexual intercourse. The trial court denied the motion. … In the present case, defense counsel accepted the representation with knowledge of the trial date and announced to the trial court a week earlier that she was ready to proceed with trial. Whorton's case was not convoluted. There was no DNA evidence presented at trial, and the victim was the only eyewitness to the alleged crimes. Further, Whorton was able to present testimony from a medical expert and from his own physician in support of his defense. … Although Whorton's counsel testified in the motion for continuance hearing that she hoped to find another expert witness to provide additional evidence that Whorton was impotent and suffered from erectile dysfunction, she did not specifically state what kinds of experts she was seeking and what additional testimony she thought they would provide.” Counsel’s later explanation of evidence she would have sought, not presented when the court made its ruling, was unavailing. “Although Whorton's trial counsel testified during the motion for new trial hearing that she would have liked more time and money to locate a urologist to do physical testing and to testify, that information was not before the trial court at the time it denied the motion. When reviewing ‘a trial court's ruling on a motion for continuance, we look at the evidence presented at the time of ruling, not at the evidence available at the motion for