Respondent's Brief - Washington State Courts

emphasis added).
T]he decision to grant or deny a motion for a continuance rests
within the sound discretion of the trial court," State v. Saunders, 153 Wn.
App. 209, 216, 220 P.3d 1238 (2009); State v. Downing, 151 Wn.2d 265,
272, 87 RM 1169 (2004); State v. Cannon, 130 Wn.2d 313, 326, 922
P.2d 1293 (1996). An abuse of discretion occurs only where the court
exercised discretion on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons, State
v. Silva, 72 Wn. App. 80, 863 P.2d 597 (1993), and thus, an appellate
court 'will not disturb the trial court's decision unless the appellant or
petitioner makes 'a clear showing... that [ the trial courtsl discretion [is]
manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for
untenable reasons."' State v. Flinn, 154 Wn.2d 193, 199, 110 P.3d 748
2005)( citing Downing, 151 Wn.2d at 272 (quoting State ex rel. Carrol v.
Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971))) emphasis ( added).
Common law has clarified that Ji]n exercising its discretion to
grant or deny a continuance, the trial court is to consider all relevant
factors." Flinn, 154 Wn.2d at 199.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion by granting a
continuance "to allow defense counsel more time to prepare for trial, even
over the defendant's objection, to ensure effective representation and a fair
trial." State v. Williams, 104 Wn. App. 516, 523, 17 P.3d 648
38 - optest-prosmisesptrialmcdaniel doc