People v. Ahuero, 2017 CO 90

Background

Defendant Stephen Ahuero was charged with two counts of sexual abuse of a child; trial set for November 13, 2012.
On October 12, 2012 defense counsel moved for a continuance, citing heavy trial schedule and having less than three weeks to prepare; motion was conclusory and sought a February/March 2013 date.
At the October 15 hearing the trial court denied the continuance, citing docket concerns, the priority of child sexual-assault cases, the victim’s family’s desire for prompt resolution, and the prospect that a different judge would have to preside.
The court did grant a short continuance for a conflicting motions hearing; defense counsel participated in that hearing and later conducted cross-examinations and gave an opening statement at trial, affirming readiness when the trial began.
Jury convicted Ahuero on both counts; on appeal the court of appeals reversed, finding the denial of the continuance violated the Sixth Amendment by denying effective assistance of counsel. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of continuance was an abuse of discretion	People: Trial court did not abuse discretion given docket, victim family’s interests, and priority of child-sexual-assault cases	Ahuero: Denial left counsel insufficient time to prepare, violating Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance	Denial was not an abuse of discretion under totality of circumstances; trial court reasonably weighed specific docket and victim-related factors against a conclusory request for delay
Whether People v. Brown counsel-of-choice factors apply to general continuance denials	People: Brown factors are not properly applied to ordinary continuance denials	Ahuero: (implicit) Brown factors support finding abuse	Court did not reach this issue because it resolved the case under ordinary continuance-abuse standards
Whether adequacy of pretrial investigation can be decided on direct appeal	People: Should wait for collateral ineffective-assistance claim rather than decide on direct appeal when record is sparse	Ahuero: Direct review appropriate because the record showed lack of preparation prejudiced defense	Court declined to reach because it found no abuse of discretion in denying continuance
Whether actual prejudice may be presumed from existence of undiscovered evidence	People: Prejudice should not be presumed without showing continuance would have uncovered evidence	Ahuero: Existence of potentially discoverable evidence supports prejudice	Court did not decide this question because denial was not an abuse of discretion on the record presented

Key Cases Cited

People v. Crow, 789 P.2d 1104 (Colo. 1990) (standard for reviewing continuance denials and abuse of discretion)
People v. Brown, 322 P.3d 214 (Colo. 2014) (counsel-of-choice factors referenced in continuance/right-to-counsel contexts)
Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1983) (trial-court scheduling discretion and limits on continuances)
Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (1964) (due-process limits on insistence upon expeditiousness when delay is justified)
People v. Hampton, 758 P.2d 1344 (Colo. 1988) (evaluate reasons presented to trial judge when reviewing continuance denials)