State v. Sowders
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The sole issue presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defense motion for a continuance under the facts of this case, which resulted in trial commencing within eleven days of appellant’s arraignment for robbery. This court has carefully examined the record and finds that, under the circumstances presented herein, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a continuance.
It is a basic due process right and indeed essential to a fair trial that a defense counsel be afforded the reasonable opportunity to prepare his case. See, e.g.,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Powell v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Ungar v. SarafiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- State v. UngerOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Hawk v. OlsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- White v. RagenSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- State v. BroomOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- State v. BeukeOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- State v. Myers (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
- State v. BlankenshipOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
- State v. Cheatam, 06-Ca-88 (6-14-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.