Background: Defendant was charged with sexual abuse in the first degree and pleaded guilty to sex abuse in the second degree.  Over two months later the client appeared at sentencing and asked for an adjournment.  Counsel also requested an  adjournment to discuss plea withdrawal.  The prosecution opposed and the court denied the request.  The Appellate Division found no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial.

 

The Court of Appeals majority held that whether to grant an adjournment is within court’s discretion.  Here, the defendant had a fair amount of time to speak with counsel concerning his  plea withdrawal.  Although two months had elapsed between the plea and sentence, the defendant contacted counsel the day before sentencing. Additionally, the defendant had been able to confer with counsel.  Moreover, if the defendant could have articulated grounds supporting plea withdrawal - the court was willing to grant the adjournment.

 

In dissent Justice Piggott considered the series of events leading to the request for an adjournment and observed that the request would have impacted no one else and represented  a balanced approach.  An adjournment of the Huntley hearing had been granted for no reason and the sentencing had previously been  delayed for the prosecutor’s vacation.  This disparate treatment rendered denial of adjournment an abuse of discretion.

 

CAL Observes: Courts are given a broad amount of discretion in managing their dockets.  The degree of disagreement concerning the denial of an adjournment here is surprising and suggests that there is room to litigate this issue where a judge allows docket management to take precedence over the fair treatment of a defendant, particularly where the request does not prejudice the prosecution.