☢ test - Í

Bailey v. State, 309 Ga.App. 473, 710 S.E.2d 656 (May 3, 2011). Cocaine possession and related convictions affirmed; no error in denying continuance to procure absent witness. Defendant failed to make three of the eight showings required to demand a continuance under OCGA § 17-8-25. “The statutory requirements are: ‘(1) that the witness is absent[;] (2) that he has been subpoenaed[;] (3) that he does not reside more than 100 miles from the place of trial ... [;] (4) that his testimony is material[;] (5) that the witness is not absent by permission ... of the movant[;] (6) that [the] movant expects to be able to procure the testimony of the witness at the next term of court[;] (7) that the continuance is not requested for purposes of delay ... and, (8) the facts expected to be proved by the absent witness must be stated. Beasley v. State, 115 Ga.App. 827–828(1) (156 S.E.2d 128) (1967). In the case at bar, the fourth, sixth and eighth requirements of OCGA § 17– 8–25 were not met. Bailey did not establish, either at trial or at the hearing held on his motion for new trial, that the absent witness's testimony was material or that Bailey expected to be able to procure his testimony during an adjournment. Moreover, Bailey never stated any facts that he expected to prove through the testimony of the absent witness. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for continuance.” Eskew v. State, 309 Ga.App. 44, 709 S.E.2d 893 (March 30, 2011). Aggravated battery convictions affirmed; no abuse of discretion where trial court denied continuance based on receipt of “more than 2000 pages of medical records” of the infant victim two weeks before trial. Counsel moved for continuance so he and his medical expert could have time to review the records. “Here, the record shows that Eskew's counsel had received the medical records at issue by November 19, nearly two weeks before the scheduled trial date. The record does not indicate that the state played a role in delaying the production of the medical records received on November 19. [fn: Compare Livingston v. State, 266 Ga. 501, 502– 503(1) (467 S.E.2d 886) (1996) (where prosecutor failed to comply with defendant's discovery request, and defendant thus did not obtain discovery to which he was entitled before trial, the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for a continuance). ] Eskew's expert witness testified that he had reviewed all of the medical records that he had been given, including those produced on November 19, in preparing for the trial. And while Eskew asserts that a continuance would have afforded his trial counsel more time to work with the expert witness to thoroughly prepare cross-examinations of the state's witnesses, Eskew has made no showing that his trial counsel's cross-examinations were somehow inadequate, nor has he pointed to any additional challenges or defenses that could have been presented on his behalf. [fn] Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a continuance. [fn]” Heard v. State, 308 Ga.App. 854, 709 S.E.2d 582 (March 28, 2011). Cocaine possession conviction reversed; trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s request for continuance based on failure to prepare a trial calendar. “USCR 32.1 provides, in pertinent part: ‘The judge or designee shall prepare a trial calendar, ... and shall give notice in person or by mail to each counsel of record ... and the defendant ... not less than 7 days before the trial date or dates. The calendar shall list the dates that cases are set for trial, the cases to be tried at that session of court, ... the names of the defendants and the names of the defense counsel.’ Based on the record before us, we conclude that the court did not comply with USCR 32.1. Defense counsel stated at trial that Heard's case was not on the trial calendar and that, other than the phone call he had received the Friday before Monday's trial, he received no notice of the trial. And the state acknowledged that the case had not been added to the trial calendar and that there had not been formal compliance with the notice rule.” “The state cites no authority, and we find none, holding that a party's announcement of ‘ready for trial’ at a pre-trial hearing vitiates the court's duty to comply with the mandatory notice rule set forth in USCR 32.1. The court was required to set a trial calendar listing the cases to be tried and was required to give Heard proper notice of his trial date.” “ Given the court's complete failure to comply with the notice rule and the circumstances under which Heard was required to proceed to trial, including counsel's having had inadequate time to prepare for two cases to be tried that week, Heard has established harm. [fn: Compare Miller v. State, 303 Ga.App. 422, 423–424, 693 S.E.2d 637 (2010) (no abuse of discretion in denying motion for continuance when, inter alia, counsel accepted representation of defendant with knowledge of trial date and with understanding that defendant did not want continuance, and counsel did not specify what else he would have done to prepare for trial); Currington v. State, 270 Ga.App. 381, 386(3), 606 S.E.2d 619 (2004) (no abuse of discretion in denying motion for continuance when, assessing noncompliance with seven-day notice requirement USCR 32.1 under the circumstances of case, defendant failed to show harm; but there was no indication in the case that the trial had never been placed on the calendar). ] Under the circumstances presented in this case, the court clearly abused its discretion in denying the motion for continuance.” Weaver v. State, 288 Ga. 540, 705 S.E.2d 627 (February 7, 2011). Murder and related convictions affirmed; no abuse of discretion in denying motion for continuance for mental evaluation. Prior evaluator had concluded that defendant was a malingerer. “The trial court also noted that Appellant conducted himself appropriately in court on the day before trial, and heard testimony that his behavior in jail for over a year had not been problematic until a few days before trial when he