David C. Northcutt v. Carmaleete Northcutt--Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Brazos County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 10th District Court of Appeals » 2000 » David C. Northcutt v. Carmaleete Northcutt--Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Brazos County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 10-99-00082-CV

Case Date: 12/13/2000

Plaintiff: David C. Northcutt

Defendant: Carmaleete Northcutt--Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Brazos County

Preview:David C. Northcutt v. Carmaleete Northcutt--Appeal
from County Court at Law No 1 of Brazos County
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-99-082-CV
IN THE MATTER
OF THE MARRIAGE OFCARMALEETE NORTHCUTT
AND
DAVID C. NORTHCUTT
From the County Court at Law No. 1
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court # 36,345A-CCL1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Carmaleete and David Northcutt were granted a divorce after a trial to the court. On the day of the trial, the court
heard a motion for continuance filed by David only seven days earlier. The trial court denied the motion and began the
trial. On appeal, David raises only one issue; that the trial court erred in denying his motion for continuance. We
affirm.
It is well established that the denial of a motion for continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and
will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Wood Oil Dist., Inc., 751 S.W.2d 863, 865
(Tex. 1988); Beutel v. Dallas County Flood Control Dist., No. 1, 916 S.W.2d 685, 693 (Tex. App. Waco 1996, writ
denied).
The reason stated in the written motion for continuance was that David s counsel had other criminal matters scheduled
for the same date. At the time of the hearing, only one criminal trial conflicted with the divorce. David s counsel
argued that he would be doing injustice to a man looking at prison time if his motion was denied. It was revealed
however, that the divorce proceeding had been set at least two months prior to the trial and that the criminal trial had
been set at least one month before trial. Also, David s counsel was not the lead counsel in the conflicting criminal trial
and would not be needed during the first day of that trial. The record reflects that Carmaleete s counsel surmised the
divorce would only take one day because of discovery sanctions requested and later granted. On appeal, David
contends that because the trial court did not follow its own local rules and give the criminal trial preference, his
counsel was unprepared for the divorce proceeding; thus, the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for
continuance. This theory for continuance was not propounded to the trial court in the written motion or at the hearing.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/4046.html[8/20/2013 7:14:41 PM]

//
Based on the record before us, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by denying David s motion for
continuance. His issue is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Davis,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Gray
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed December 13, 2000
Do not publish
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/4046.html[8/20/2013 7:14:41 PM]

Download 4046.pdf