Summary
finding no abuse of discretion where district court denied a motion for a continuance the day before trial when there was "no substantial basis" for "dissatisfaction" or "distrust" with the defendants' appointed counsel
Summary of this case from State v. CramOpinion
Nos. 42617, 42618.
January 14, 1972.
Criminal law — convictions of aggravated rape — sufficiency of evidence — denial of motion for continuance — propriety.
Two appeals, one by Robert James Ahearn and one by Kenneth Louis Ahearn, from judgments of the Hennepin County District Court, Tom Bergin, Judge, whereby they were convicted of kidnapping, aggravated rape, aggravated assault, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Affirmed.
C. Paul Jones, State Public Defender, and Ronald Haskvitz, Assistant State Public Defender, for appellants.
Warren Spannaus, Attorney General, George M. Scott, County Attorney, and Henry W. McCarr, Jr., and David G. Roston, Assistant County Attorneys, for respondent.
Heard before Knutson, C. J., and Murphy, Otis, and Peterson, JJ.
Defendants, tried jointly at their request, were convicted of aggravated rape, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Sentence was imposed only for the crime of aggravated rape, and their appeals relate to that conviction.
Defendants' principal claim is that the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction. We hold that the evidence was clearly sufficient.
Defendants' other claim is that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a continuance to permit substitution of counsel. This, too, is without merit. On the day before trial defendants requested a week's continuance upon the indefinite representation that a good friend was going "to look into what attorney to hire" and "would need about a week to decide." No substantial basis for dissatisfaction with their appointed counsel or distrust of him was expressed by either defendant. Separate counsel from the county public defender's staff had been assigned to defendants more than 2 months before that date, and each of these experienced attorneys was fully prepared for trial. Defendants had pressed for a speedy trial, a Rasmussen hearing had been concluded, and the trial date had been fixed. No exceptional circumstances appearing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying their motion. State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 176 N.W.2d 261 (1970); State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475, 148 N.W.2d 137 (1967).
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE TODD, not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.