State v. Lacey, 2016 Ohio 1375

In Nov. 2014 Antonio Lacey was indicted with co-defendants on multiple counts including felonious assault (with firearm specifications), discharge of a firearm, and having a weapon while under disability.\n- Trial was originally scheduled for Feb. 19, 2015; a state plea offer (guilty to one count of felonious assault in exchange for dismissal of other charges/specs) was placed on the record but defendants initially opted for trial.\n- Due to court closure for severe weather and the prosecutor being in another trial, the court continued the case to Feb. 23 and then to Mar. 2, 2015.\n- On Feb. 26, 2015 Lacey retained new counsel who filed a motion for continuance because he was on a prepaid vacation through Mar. 2; the trial court denied the continuance, the new attorney moved to withdraw, and withdrawal was granted.\n- On Mar. 2, 2015 Lacey accepted the previously offered plea and pled guilty to felonious assault; he was sentenced to seven years. The state’s evidence would not have identified the shooter and relied on transferred intent.\n- The appellate court vacated Lacey’s conviction and sentence and remanded, holding the trial court erred in denying the continuance; the sentencing issue was rendered moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Lacey's motion for continuance after he retained new counsel	The court properly managed its docket; denial was within discretion and there was no undue prejudice	Denial prevented Lacey from being represented by counsel of his choice and deprived him of adequate time for counsel to prepare	Court: Denial was an abuse of discretion under Unger factors; vacated conviction and remanded
Whether the seven-year sentence was an abuse of discretion	Sentence within statutory range and based on plea and mitigating statements	Sentence was excessive	Moot (decision on continuance renders sentencing issue moot)

Unger v. State, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1981) (factors to evaluate continuance requests and abuse-of-discretion review)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1964) (reviewing denial of continuance for due process concerns)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to counsel of choice and self-representation)
United States v. Burton, 584 F.2d 485 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (continuance-analysis authority cited in Unger)
Giacalone v. Lucas, 445 F.2d 1238 (6th Cir. 1971) (continuance-analysis authority cited in Unger)