| JOHN W. LYLES, JR. v. COMMONWEALTH OF | | | | to allow appellant to retain an attorney to protect his |
| VIRGINIA | | | | interests. In fact, on July 7, appellant's counsel |
| COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA | | | | requested an additional continuance to have the trial |
| 21 Va. App. 187 | | | | heard on a date acceptable to his schedule. When the |
| Trooper Ingham pulled in front of appellant's car. When | | | | trial resumed on July 28, 1994, the same judge heard |
| asked why he failed to stop, appellant | | | | the case who had initially heard it on June 16, 1994. |
| "responded that he was in a hurry to relieve the | | | | Appellant was not re-arraigned and did not enter pleas |
| doctor covering for him at the hospital." Appellant was | | | | to the charges. The Commonwealth called Trooper |
| convicted for reckless driving and disregarding a police | | | | Ingham as its witness and continued with his testimony. |
| signal to stop, in violation of Va. Code § 46.2-852 and | | | | Additionally, the court orders and statement of facts |
| 46.2-817. | | | | show no contemporaneous objection by appellant to |
| Issue: | | | | the continuance. Under the facts of this case, we find |
| Whether the trial court erred in continuing the hearing | | | | no abuse of discretion in the trial court's granting of a |
| after jeopardy attached so that appellant could retain | | | | continuance from June 16, 1994 to July 7, 1994 to allow |
| an attorney? | | | | appellant to obtain counsel." |
| The court held that "the continuance in this case was | | | | Disclaimer: |
| for the benefit of appellant rather than the | | | | These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law |
| Commonwealth. Appellant does not contend that the | | | | Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of |
| brief continuance prejudiced him in any way, and no | | | | the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be |
| evidence in the record demonstrates prejudice. On the | | | | consulted for their authoritative content. |
| contrary, the trial court continued the case specifically | | | | |