State v. Ronnie Cecil Peebles, 2017AP2536-CR, District 4, 8/16/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court didn’t err in denying the adjournment request Peebles made on the morning of trial because he said he was feeling ill.
¶9 Peebles’[s] argument falls flat, first, because the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying the last-minute request for a continuance. The circuit court appropriately balanced various pertinent factors [inconvenience for the witnesses; length of time the case was pending; no objective affirmation Peebles was ill] “in light of all the circumstances that appear of record.” [State v. Wollman, 86 Wis. 2d 459, 468, 273 N.W.2d 225 (1979)]. Peebles’[s] argument amounts to nothing more than he wanted a different result on the continuance request, and Peebles does not, in any coherent way, explain how the circuit court’s decision was an improper exercise of discretion.
¶10 Second, … Peebles has not shown that he was in any way prejudiced by the court’s denial of his request for a continuance. See id. at 469. Within a few moments after the court denied the request for a continuance, Peebles entered the courtroom. Peebles testified during the trial and, according to the record, was able to take part in the proceedings without any problem. ….
