request to continue hearing in California

2021Although the trial court did not literally dismiss the action as a sanction for the prosecutor’s failure to show good cause, it was clear at the time that denial of the request to continue the hearing was likely to lead to dismissal of the case.” (Ferrer, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 882 .) 8 Relying on the opinions in Ferguson and Henderson, and extending the reasoning of those decisions to hearings on motions to suppress, the Ferrer court decided, because “it was reasonably foreseeable that denial of the prosecutor’s request for a continuance would result in dismissal of the case, we conclud

2021Although the trial court did not literally dismiss the action as a sanction for the prosecutor’s failure to show good cause, it was clear at the time that denial of the request to continue the hearing was likely to lead to dismissal of the case.” (Ferrer, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 882 .) 8 Relying on the opinions in Ferguson and Henderson, and extending the reasoning of those decisions to hearings on motions to suppress, the Ferrer court decided, because “it was reasonably foreseeable that denial of the prosecutor’s request for a continuance would result in dismissal of the case, we conclud

1985(People v. Nixon, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d 687 .) While our attention has not been called to any other cases finding prejudice from a pretrial probation revocation hearing, we do not mean to imply that there are no other situations in which it might be an abuse of discretion to deny a request to continue the hearing.

1985(People v. Nixon, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d 687 .) While our attention has not been called to any other cases finding prejudice from a pretrial probation revocation hearing, we do not mean to imply that there are no other situations in which it might be an abuse of discretion to deny a request to continue the hearing.

2021Continuances may only be granted for good cause, and must be in the best interests of the child. (§ 352, subd. (a); In re Ninfa S. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 808, 810 .) “[W]hen a dependent child has been removed from his or her home, the Legislature expresses a clear preference for placement with a relative, if the home is appropriate and the placement is in the child’s best interest. [Citation.] The relative placement preference under section 361.3 applies throughout the reunification period. [Citation.] In addition, section 361.3 applies after the reunification period where the relative has made

2021Continuances may only be granted for good cause, and must be in the best interests of the child. (§ 352, subd. (a); In re Ninfa S. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 808, 810 .) “[W]hen a dependent child has been removed from his or her home, the Legislature expresses a clear preference for placement with a relative, if the home is appropriate and the placement is in the child’s best interest. [Citation.] The relative placement preference under section 361.3 applies throughout the reunification period. [Citation.] In addition, section 361.3 applies after the reunification period where the relative has made

1985Prejudice has been found from denial of a continuance of a probation revocation hearing where a defendant could have benefited from a later motion to suppress evidence in the related case. ( People v. Fuller, supra, 148 Cal. App.3d 257 ; People v. Howard, supra, 162 Cal. App.3d 8 .) There was not prejudice in a similar case because the prosecutor represented that the related case was going to be dismissed before trial because of search and seizure problems. ( People v. Nixon, supra, 131 Cal. App.3d 687 .) While our attention has not been called to any other cases finding prejudice from a pretr

1985Prejudice has been found from denial of a continuance of a probation revocation hearing where a defendant could have benefited from a later motion to suppress evidence in the related case. ( People v. Fuller, supra, 148 Cal. App.3d 257 ; People v. Howard, supra, 162 Cal. App.3d 8 .) There was not prejudice in a similar case because the prosecutor represented that the related case was going to be dismissed before trial because of search and seizure problems. ( People v. Nixon, supra, 131 Cal. App.3d 687 .) While our attention has not been called to any other cases finding prejudice from a pretr

1985Prejudice has been found from denial of a continuance of a probation revocation hearing where a defendant could have benefited from a later motion to suppress evidence in the related case. ( People v. Fuller, supra, 148 Cal. App.3d 257 ; People v. Howard, supra, 162 Cal. App.3d 8 .) There was not prejudice in a similar case because the prosecutor represented that the related case was going to be dismissed before trial because of search and seizure problems. ( People v. Nixon, supra, 131 Cal. App.3d 687 .) While our attention has not been called to any other cases finding prejudice from a pretr

1985Prejudice has been found from denial of a continuance of a probation revocation hearing where a defendant could have benefited from a later motion to suppress evidence in the related case. ( People v. Fuller, supra, 148 Cal. App.3d 257 ; People v. Howard, supra, 162 Cal. App.3d 8 .) There was not prejudice in a similar case because the prosecutor represented that the related case was going to be dismissed before trial because of search and seizure problems. ( People v. Nixon, supra, 131 Cal. App.3d 687 .) While our attention has not been called to any other cases finding prejudice from a pretr