From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rastall

Michigan Court of Appeals
Nov 26, 1969
20 Mich. App. 264 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)

Opinion

Docket No. 4,728.

Decided November 26, 1969.

Appeal from Genesee, Philip C. Elliott, J. Submitted Division 2 November 12, 1969, at Lansing. (Docket No. 4,728.) Decided November 26, 1969.

Thomas Eugene Rastall was convicted of armed robbery. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Robert F. Leonard, Prosecuting Attorney, and Donald A. Kuebler, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Sanford Kesten, for defendant.

Before: LEVIN, P.J., and T.M. BURNS and DANHOF, JJ.


On June 6, 1967, defendant was convicted of armed robbery after a nonjury trial, CLS 1961, § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp § 28.797).

The only issue on appeal is whether the trial judge abused his discretion by denying defense counsel's motion for a second continuance made on the day of trial.

The Michigan Supreme Court has repeatedly held that granting or refusing applications for continuances is within the discretion of the trial court, and unless it is shown that his discretion was abused, his action will not be reversed, People v. Burby (1922), 218 Mich. 46. See also People v. Knox (1961), 364 Mich. 620; CL 1948, § 768.2 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1025); GCR 1963, 503.

It is clear from the record in this case that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Rastall

Michigan Court of Appeals
Nov 26, 1969
20 Mich. App. 264 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)
Case details for

People v. Rastall

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v. RASTALL

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 26, 1969

Citations

20 Mich. App. 264 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)
174 N.W.2d 33

Citing Cases

People v. Shuey

In Michigan adjournments and requests for continuances are within the sound discretion of the trial court.…

People v. Riley

A denial of a motion for a continuance is reversible error only if it constitutes an abuse of discretion.…