motion to continue hearing in Ohio

2004Hartt v. Munobe (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 3 , 9 , 615 N.E.2d 617 . {¶ 27} Absent an abuse of discretion, an appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.

2004Hartt v. Munobe (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 3 , 9 , 615 N.E.2d 617 . {¶ 27} Absent an abuse of discretion, an appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.

2022In re J.D., supra. Given the information before it at that time, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to continue the hearing.

2017Again, Mother could have filed a motion to continue the hearing on November 7, 2016, if she felt she needed additional time. {¶ 50} Moreover, Mother fails to suggest what more counsel could have done to requirement that appellant be afforded counsel at temporary custody proceedings.” In re Miller, 12 Ohio St.3d 40, 41 , 465 N.E.2d 397 (1984).

2017Again, Mother could have filed a motion to continue the hearing on November 7, 2016, if she felt she needed additional time. {¶ 50} Moreover, Mother fails to suggest what more counsel could have done to requirement that appellant be afforded counsel at temporary custody proceedings.” In re Miller, 12 Ohio St.3d 40, 41 , 465 N.E.2d 397 (1984).

2010State v. Berry (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d at 385 , 686 N.E.2d 1097 , quoting State v. Tyler (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 24, 29 , 553 N.E.2d 576 . {¶ 17} In the following exchange with the trial court, defense counsel provided a basis for granting Dean a competency hearing before allowing him to waive his right to postconviction proceedings: {¶ 18} “The Court: * * * And I’ve received a motion to continue the hearing on this — on the defendant’s pro se motion and I’ve also received a proffer of Dr. Stinson’s letter in support of that motion.

2010State v. Berry (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d at 385 , 686 N.E.2d 1097 , quoting State v. Tyler (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 24, 29 , 553 N.E.2d 576 . {¶ 17} In the following exchange with the trial court, defense counsel provided a basis for granting Dean a competency hearing before allowing him to waive his right to postconviction proceedings: {¶ 18} “The Court: * * * And I’ve received a motion to continue the hearing on this — on the defendant’s pro se motion and I’ve also received a proffer of Dr. Stinson’s letter in support of that motion.

2010State v. Berry (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d at 385 , 686 N.E.2d 1097 , quoting State v. Tyler (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 24, 29 , 553 N.E.2d 576 . {¶ 17} In the following exchange with the trial court, defense counsel provided a basis for granting Dean a competency hearing before allowing him to waive his right to postconviction proceedings: {¶ 18} “The Court: * * * And I’ve received a motion to continue the hearing on this — on the defendant’s pro se motion and I’ve also received a proffer of Dr. Stinson’s letter in support of that motion.

2010State v. Berry (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d at 385 , 686 N.E.2d 1097 , quoting State v. Tyler (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 24, 29 , 553 N.E.2d 576 . {¶ 17} In the following exchange with the trial court, defense counsel provided a basis for granting Dean a competency hearing before allowing him to waive his right to postconviction proceedings: {¶ 18} “The Court: * * * And I’ve received a motion to continue the hearing on this — on the defendant’s pro se motion and I’ve also received a proffer of Dr. Stinson’s letter in support of that motion.

2007Bd. (1993), *Page 26 66 Ohio St.3d 619 , 621 (denial or grant of a motion to continue a hearing lies within the broad discretion of a trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion); In re Hitchcock (1996), 120 Ohio App.3d 88 , 97 (trial court has wide discretion regarding designation of an individual as a party to the juvenile proceeding before it and such determination will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion); In re Sherman , 3d Dist.

2007Bd. (1993), *Page 26 66 Ohio St.3d 619 , 621 (denial or grant of a motion to continue a hearing lies within the broad discretion of a trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion); In re Hitchcock (1996), 120 Ohio App.3d 88 , 97 (trial court has wide discretion regarding designation of an individual as a party to the juvenile proceeding before it and such determination will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion); In re Sherman , 3d Dist.

2007Holop v. Holop (1989), 59 Ohio App.3d 51 .

2007Nos. 5-06-21, 5-06-22, 5-06-23, 2006-Ohio-6485 , ¶ 7 ("the decision whether to allow a child to attend a hearing on a motion for permanent custody is within the sound discretion of the trial court" and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion).

2005In re Baby Girl Doe, 149 Ohio App.3d 717 , 2002-Ohio-4470 , at ¶ 55 (citations omitted). {¶ 29} Our review of the record reveals that Mikel was not subpoenaed as a witness, though she did appear on appellant's list of potential witnesses on appellant's behalf.

2004Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Serv. of Durham Cty., North Carolina (1981), 452 U.S. 18 , 101 S.Ct. 2153 . {¶ 26} The decision to grant or deny a motion to continue a hearing or a trial is entrusted to the broad discretion of the trial court.

2004Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Serv. of Durham Cty., North Carolina (1981), 452 U.S. 18 , 101 S.Ct. 2153 . {¶ 26} The decision to grant or deny a motion to continue a hearing or a trial is entrusted to the broad discretion of the trial court.

1954For this error the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.” In re McFarlin, 9 Del.