Argued and Submitted January 30, 2014
Lane County Circuit Court. 201104280. Suzanne B. Chanti, Judge.
Laura A. Frikert, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Office of Public Defense Services.
Rebecca M. Johansen, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General.
Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and De Muniz, Senior Judge.
[264 Or.App. 553] EGAN, J.
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for one count of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine. ORS 475.890. He assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion for a continuance. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying defendant's motion. Therefore, we affirm.
We review the trial court's denial of a motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion. " Discretion refers to the authority of a trial court to choose among several legally correct outcomes. If the trial court's decision was within the range of legally correct discretionary choices and produced a permissible, legally correct outcome, then the trial court did not abuse its discretion." State v. Hug, 186 Or.App. 569, 572, 64 P.3d 1173, rev den, 335 Or. 510, 73 P.3d 292 (2003) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Further, " [i]f the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court even if we might have resolved the issue differently." State v. Licari, 261 Or.App. 805, 808, 322 P.3d 568 (2014).
Defendant was indicted on one count of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine, ORS 475.890, in March 2011. Defendant was arraigned on April 21, 2011, and the trial court appointed counsel for defendant that day. His trial was initially scheduled for June 14, 2011.
On May 26, 2011, the state filed a notice of sentencing enhancement facts. That same day, defendant's initial attorney moved to withdraw as counsel. The court engaged in the following colloquy with ...