People v. Ferguson CA4/3

Filed 11/12/26 P. v. Ferguson CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, G065998 v. (Super. Ct. No. 23NF1975) JEFFREY MALCOLM FERGUSON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Eleanor J. Hunter, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Frances Prizzia and Frances Prizzia, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beesley, Evan Stele and Cobi Furdek, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Appellant. * * *  Jeffrey Malcolm Ferguson was a superior court judge with a concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit. During an argument with his wife at a restaurant, Ferguson pointed his finger at her while making a shooting motion. When they returned home, the argument continued. Ferguson’s wife said, “Why don’t you point a real gun at me?” Ferguson pulled a handgun from his ankle holster, pointed it at his wife, and fatally shot her. As he waited outside for police, Ferguson texted his court staff: “I just lost it. I just shot my wife. I won’t be in tomorrow. I’ll be in custody.” The People charged Ferguson with murder. The court declared a mistrial after a jury deadlocked 11 to one for guilt. About a month later, a second trial began. Ferguson testified at both trials that he accidentally fired the gun. The second jury found Ferguson guilty of second degree murder. The court denied a new trial motion and imposed a sentence of 35 years to life. Ferguson claims the trial court erred by denying his motion to continue the retrial, and by denying his application to file the new trial motion under seal. We find no abuse of discretion. In any event, Ferguson has not established that he was prejudiced. Ferguson also claims the trial court demonstrated judicial bias during the retrial. But Ferguson did not raise this claim during the retrial, so it has been forfeited on appeal. Thus, we affirm the judgment. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Ferguson had been a prosecutor for 32 years, and a superior court judge for nine years. For over a decade, Ferguson carried a semiautomatic Glock handgun in an ankle holster. A Velcro strap secured the holster to his ankle, and another strap secured the gun within the holster. Ferguson 2 carried the concealed gun with him at all times, except when he showered or went to bed. Ferguson was a member of the National Rifle Association, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, and the United States Concealed Carry Association. In order to renew a CCW permit, a person must receive eight hours of safety training every two to three years. Further, the person must be qualified on a shooting range with 70 percent accuracy. A person with a CCW permit must also agree not to carry the concealed weapon while consuming any alcoholic beverages. A reported violation of this rule results in the revocation of the CCW permit by the sheriff’s department. In March 2021, Ferguson received CCW training from Gregory Block, a certified trainer. Block trained Ferguson on basic safety rules, such as treating all firearms as if they are loaded, keeping your finger off the trigger until you have your sights on the target, and never pointing a firearm at anything you are not willing to destroy. Block also trained Ferguson that he was never to use alcohol when handling a gun, and he was never to handle a gun in an emotional state, such as anger or depression. On August 3, 2023, Ferguson was the judge assigned to a courtroom in Fullerton handling felony arraignments. Ferguson went out to lunch at a Fullerton restaurant and had an Old Fashioned cocktail. Ferguson later left work and arrived at his Anaheim Hills home at about 3:30 p.m. Ferguson’s 22-year-old son Phillip was there because he was on a summer break from college. Ferguson drank a 16 oz. beer, and then a rum and Coke. Later, Ferguson’s wife Sheryl got home, and the couple began arguing about finances, which is a topic they frequently bickered about. Sheryl drove the family to a nearby Mexican restaurant for dinner. Sheryl and Ferguson continued arguing at the table. Ferguson had 3 two margaritas. At one point, Ferguson pointed his index finger at Sheryl while making a shooting motion. Phillip had never seen his father do that before. Sheryl was upset, got up from the table, and walked outside. Phillip was also upset and briefly walked away from the table. When he returned to the table Phillip swore at his father. Phillip asked him, “why don’t you two just get a divorce?” Ferguson replied that “he didn’t think he could afford it.” Sheryl returned to the table and told Ferguson, “‘Shut the f*ck up and finish your margarita.’” Eventually, Sheryl drove the family home. When Phillip, Ferguson, and Sheryl got home, they sat in the family room and watched television. As they faced the television, Phillip sat on the far right side of a couch, and Ferguson sat on the couch to Phillip’s left. Sheryl sat in her usual seat, a “wobbly” swivel chair, which was to Ferguson’s left and about three feet from the couch. There was a rectangular coffee table directly in front of the couch. Behind the couch was a sliding glass door that opened to a rear patio. After about an hour of watching television, the argument between Ferguson and Sheryl resumed. Phillip noticed his father was slurring his words, and he was louder and more argumentive than usual. Phillip got up from the couch and walked towards the sliding glass door because he was upset. Ferguson and Sheryl were arguing about the earlier shooting motion Ferguson had made at the restaurant. Sheryl said to Ferguson, “‘Why don’t you point a real gun at me?’” While sitting on the couch, Ferguson took his gun out of his ankle holster, pointed it at Sheryl with his right hand, and shot her once in the torso. Phillip was standing right behind his father and heard his mother say, “[H]e shot me.” Phillip jumped over the couch and tackled his father to the floor in order to get the gun out of his hand. While doing so, Phillip knocked a 4 glass tumbler off the coffee table, which shattered on the floor. Phillip held on to Ferguson’s right hand and would not let go until his father released the handgun. Phillip was able to get the gun from Ferguson, who then got up from the floor and told Phillip to call 9-1-1. Ferguson opened the front door and walked outside. Phillip called 9-1-1, and spoke to the dispatcher. Sheryl made a “gurgling” noise and stopped breathing. Phillip put the phone on speaker and did compressions on his mother’s chest as he was being instructed by the dispatcher. While waiting outside, Ferguson sent a group text to his bailiff and court clerk at 8:05 p.m. The text said: “I just lost it. I just shot my wife. I won’t be in tomorrow. I’ll be in custody. I’m so sorry.” Ferguson called 9-1-1. When a dispatcher asked him what happened, he said, “I don’t want to talk about it right now.” Officers arrived and saw Ferguson sitting outside on a retaining wall. An officer told Ferguson to put his hands up and to get on the ground. Ferguson said he was unable to do so because he would not be able to get up. When asked if he needed medical attention, he said, “No, I guess I’m f*cked.” Officers removed the ankle holster from Ferguson’s leg. Ferguson volunteered statements at the scene, including: “F*ck me. What an asshole I am. Jesus Christ.” “Ah man, I can’t believe I did this.” “My son will hate me for the rest of my life.” “I deserve it. I deserve everything sir.” “I just killed my wife . . . F*ck!” Police Investigation Officer Michael Lee was dispatched and arrived at the Ferguson home a little after 8:05 p.m. Ferguson was outside with other officers. Lee heard Ferguson say, “I did it,” and “Shoot me.” Lee entered the home and saw 5 Phillip performing CPR on Sheryl. Lee picked up a swivel chair and tossed it aside to make room for paramedics. Lee checked Sheryl’s body and could not find a pulse. Lee and another officer took over and performed CPR until paramedics arrived. Sheryl died at the scene due to a single gunshot wound that entered her abdomen, and exited out of her back. Ferguson was taken to the police station where he asked for an attorney to be present during questioning. Ferguson made several voluntary statements, including: “I killed my son’s mother. What the f*ck am I doing here? What the f*ck did you do? . . . What was she thinking? Now she’s dead. And I’m f*cked and . . . I killed her. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, convict my ass. I did it. . . . I must have lost it. Now I’m f*cked.” “That’s my son. He said don’t shoot me.” “I’m not your usual suspect but goddamn, I’m the suspect. Unbelievable. Un-f*cking-believable. I just . . . One day life is good, the next day, bang. It’s done. It’s all over.” “Forty years. Just throw it away. Me and my wife. She’s dead.” “Everything’s gone . . . My pension’s gone. F*ck me.” “Too bad this f*cking state got rid of the death penalty. F*ck. What the f*ck. I deserve everything I’m going to get.” “I’m kind of surprised. My son didn’t kill me. He’d have a right.” “Its like being in an automobile accident.” “Actually, it’s more like causing the automobile accident. You’re driving along and you do something stupid. . . . It’s your fault. It’s your f*cking fault. And then bang. The lives are lost.” “And you deserve to go to hell for it. Yeah, I’m going to burn in hell for it. Forever. . . . Just set me up on f*cking 50 and send me on my way.” On August 4, 2023, at 3:24 a.m., Ferguson’s blood was drawn and revealed a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.065 percent. A forensic scientist later opined Ferguson’s BAC at the time of the shooting was between 0.139 and 0.250 percent. 6  At the Ferguson home, police found a semiautomatic handgun on the floor near the family room. The gun had a live round in the chamber and additional rounds in the magazine. Police found 48 other firearms throughout the home, numerous firearm parts, and about 15,000 rounds of ammunition. Police found liquor cabinets throughout the residence, and loose liquor bottles on the floor of Ferguson’s home office. A forensic team collected evidence and photographed the crime scene. The chair Sheryl had been sitting in was overturned near the coffee table. There was blood on the chair, and holes showing where the bullet entered and exited. A forensic specialist moved the chair in order to collect an expended cartridge lying underneath the chair on the carpeted floor. The bullet that first went through Sheryl, and then the chair, was later extracted from a wall in the kitchen. Police obtained surveillance video from a camera mounted on the patio. The video captured a view through the sliding glass door into the family room. The video was of low quality, but it appeared to show Sheryl as she fell out of the chair, and the relative positions of Ferguson and Phillip during the shooting. Police also obtained video from the Fullerton restaurant where Ferguson consumed alcohol during lunch, and video from the Mexican restaurant where the family had eaten dinner before the shooting. A forensic scientist examined Ferguson’s Glock handgun. The scientist test-fired the weapon three times. The gun has several safety features. There is an external trigger safety device that must be pulled simultaneously with the trigger in order to fire the gun. There is also an external trigger guard. The gun also has an internal safety system. The safety features prevent the gun from accidentally firing, for instance, if the gun was dropped, or if something mistakenly caught on the trigger. The 7 scientist determined the gun’s safety features were all working properly. The scientist tested the “trigger pull” of the weapon, which is the amount of force necessary to fire the gun. The trigger pull was from five, to five and a quarter pounds, which is normal. The scientist noted that on the right-hand side of the gun there is an ejection port from which spent casings are ejected. The scientist later testified that the location of ejected casings can vary based on various factors (the shooter’s height, how they are holding the gun, etc.). The scientist said that she has seen casings eject straight up 1 from a handgun and land on her head. Between the first trial and the second trial, a defense expert (Block) test-fired Ferguson’s handgun 23 times at the firing range at the police station. A detective observed the test-firings and later testified that the casings initially landed on a piece of carpet that had been placed on the floor, but the bullets then bounced all over the range (as far as 13 to 15 feet from the firing position). Court Proceedings On June 27, 2024, the Orange County District Attorney filed an information charging Ferguson with murder. The information also alleged firearm enhancements, and factors in aggravation. On November 15, Cameron Talley and Kaveh Newman substituted in as Ferguson’s attorneys of record. On February 18, 2025, a jury trial began in an Orange County 1 At both trials, Ferguson maintained that the location of the ejected casing supported his defense that he accidentally fired the weapon as he was placing it on the coffee table with the ejection port facing down. 8 courtroom with a Los Angeles County judge presiding. On March 10, the trial court declared a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a verdict. The split was 11 to 1 in favor of guilt. After releasing the jurors, the court discussed choosing a date to begin a retrial. The court noted: “This wasn’t an overly-complicated case, actually. It just wasn’t. [¶] And . . . we were able to finish this, including jury selection, in six days.” The court set a hearing three days later to confirm there would be no change in defense counsel, and to formally set the date. The court said it intended to begin the retrial on either April 7 or May 19. On March 13, the trial court conducted a telephonic hearing. The court said, “I’d like to try it on April the 7th. I cleared my calendar for that. [¶] So I understand both of you have transcripts already.” Ferguson’s counsel Talley said he would prefer that the retrial begin in May. After some discussion, the court said it did not find Talley’s reasons persuasive, and set the retrial date for April 7. The court told Talley, “If you file a 1050 motion . . . , either on the 1st or 2nd, just make sure you let me know, and we will have the hearing on . . . either the 2nd or the 3d, and that way I’ll consider the 1050. And clearly, if you’re engaged in trial, you can’t be in two places at once.” (See Pen. Code, § 1050.) 2 On April 3, Ferguson filed a one-page motion to continue the retrial date, with a one-page declaration from Talley. On April 7, after hearing arguments, the trial court denied the motion to continue the retrial, and after a brief recess, jury selection began 2 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. We shall also generally omit the word “subdivision” or its abbreviation. 9 (the proceedings on the motion to continue the retrial will be covered in greater detail in the discussion section of this opinion). Retrial Proceedings The People started their case-in-chief on Monday April 14, 2025, and concluded on Thursday, April 17. The People were represented by prosecutors Seton Hunt and Casey Cunningham. The People’s witnesses were all associated with law enforcement, except for percipient witness Phillip, 3 and defense firearm expert Block. Phillip claimed memory loss several times during his testimony. His memory was refreshed with statements he made to the police on the night of the shooting. The People entered 119 exhibits into evidence, including a video of Phillip demonstrating to police how Ferguson shot the handgun.4 The defense started their case on Thursday, April 17, 2025, and concluded on Friday, April 18. Ferguson was represented by Talley and Frances Prizzia. The defense entered 16 exhibits into evidence. Three character witnesses testified to Ferguson’s reputation for peacefulness in the community. Two experts testified for the defense. An orthopedic surgeon testified that he had reviewed medical records, and had examined Ferguson the night before. The expert opined that Ferguson had tears to the tendons in his right shoulder, which would 3 Block testified during the People’s case-in-chief as to the training he had provided to Ferguson in order to renew his CCW permit. The defense did not call Block to testify during the defense case. 4 To facilitate our review, we ordered the superior court to transmit to this court all of the admitted exhibits, with the exception of Ferguson’s ankle holster, and the Glock handgun used in the shooting. 10 normally hinder a person’s ability to lift an object using just his or her right arm. However, the surgeon agreed that if such a person was holding an object in their right hand, while keeping the elbow bent and close to the body (as Phillip had demonstrated the shooting to the police), then that would reduce the stress to the person’s shoulder. A forensic firearm expert testified that he examined the swivel chair Sheryl sat in when she was shot in order to determine the bullet’s trajectory. The expert opined that Ferguson shot the handgun from a point lower than the bullet’s entry into the chair. However, the expert wrote in a written report: “‘The exact height of the muzzle of the firearm cannot be determined due to variables such as the position and posture of S. Ferguson while seated in the chair, her anatomical measurements, and the ability of the chair to rock forwards and backwards by several inches.’” Ferguson testified on his own behalf. Ferguson said that he made a shooting-type hand gesture towards Sheryl at the restaurant, but he said that he meant the gesture to convey: “I want to end the argument. It’s touché. You win. We’re done.” Ferguson testified that he told Phillip he could not afford a divorce, but he said that he “was being sarcastic. It’s a response you make sometimes to people.” Ferguson testified that when they were back home Sheryl mimicked the earlier motion he had made at the restaurant. Ferguson said he looked at Sheryl and said: “‘Come on, don’t be upset,’ and she took in a breath and” he heard her say, “‘Why don’t you put the real gun away for me.’” Ferguson said that he then took his handgun out of his ankle holster. Ferguson said he took the gun out of the holster (rather than removing the ankle holster), because he could not effectively reach the holster while seated on the couch. Ferguson said he was intending to put the gun on the coffee 11 table, and while attempting to do so with an open palm, the ejection port on the gun was facing downward. Ferguson testified: “As I extended my arm and reached forward toward the table, I had a sudden -- a sharp pain in my right shoulder, and my arm felt like it was going to -- my whole arm felt like it was just going to sort of drop slightly.” “What had happened, I just -- I flinched. It was a reflexive -- I just grabbed. I thought I was going to drop the firearm. I thought it was going to fall, and I just grabbed it. It was just a reaction.” “When I did the flinch, my finger -- when I did a grip like my fist to grab it, the finger came off. The finger -- my forefinger drew back, and it went in the trigger guard and must have hit the trigger and pulled the trigger.” Ferguson testified that he went outside after the shooting without offering aid to Sheryl, but he said that “Phillip was an Eagle Scout and had received training in CPR . . . .” Ferguson acknowledged that he texted his court staff: “‘I just lost it. I just shot my wife. I won’t be in tomorrow. I will be in custody. I’m so sorry.’” However, Ferguson said that he meant to text: “I’d just lost it. I just shot my wife.” As far as his comment that he would be in custody, Ferguson testified, “I knew they were going to take me for questioning, at the very least.” The trial court instructed the jury on second degree murder, in part, as follows: “There are two kinds of malice aforethought, express malice and implied malice. Proof of either is sufficient to establish the state of mind required for murder. [¶] The defendant had express malice if he unlawfully intended to kill. [¶] The defendant had implied malice if: [¶] 1. He intentionally committed the act; [¶] 2. The natural and probable consequence of the act were dangerous to human life in that the act involved a high degree of probability that it would result in death; [¶] 3. At the time he acted, he 12 knew his act was dangerous to human life; [¶] AND [¶] 4. He deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human life.” During closing argument, the prosecutor argued Ferguson acted with express malice. The prosecutor further argued that even if some jurors believed Ferguson’s account of the shooting, then he was still guilty of second degree murder under an implied malice theory. On April 22, 2025, the jury found Ferguson guilty of second degree murder. The jury also found true an allegation that he “personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and death.” (Italics added.) Posttrial Proceedings On September 3, 2025, Ferguson filed an application to file a new trial motion under seal. Attached to the application was a declaration by Prizzia. Ferguson also filed duplicate new trial motions (one was filed under provisional seal, and the other was filed with redactions). On September 17, the court first denied the application to file the new trial motion under seal, and then denied the new trial motion itself (the proceedings will be covered in greater detail in the discussion section of this opinion). The trial court sentenced Ferguson to a total state prison term of 35 years to life. Ferguson filed an appeal from the judgment. II. DISCUSSION Ferguson claims the trial court erred: A) by denying his motion to continue the retrial; B) by denying his request to file the new trial motion under seal; and C) by demonstrating judicial bias throughout the retrial. 13 A. Motion to Continue the Retrial Ferguson claims: “The trial court violated appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process when it refused to grant defense counsel a brief continuance to prepare for trial.” (Capitalization & boldface omitted.) We disagree and find no abuse of the court’s discretion. In this part of the discussion, we shall: 1) review relevant principles of law; 2) summarize the proceedings regarding the motion to continue the retrial; and 3) analyze the law as applied the facts. 1. Relevant Legal Principles “The welfare of the people of the State of California requires that all proceedings in criminal cases shall be set for trial and heard and determined at the earliest possible time.” (§ 1050 (a).) “To continue any hearing in a criminal proceeding, including the trial, . . . a written notice shall be filed and served on all parties to the proceeding at least two court days before the hearing sought to be continued, together with affidavits or declarations detailing specific facts showing that a continuance is necessary . . . .” (§ 1050 (b).) “Continuances shall be granted only upon a showing of good cause. Neither the convenience of the parties nor a stipulation of the parties is in and of itself good cause.” (§ 1050 (e).) “A criminal trial may be continued only upon a showing of good cause. Trial courts have wide discretion to determine whether such cause exists.” (People v. Reed (2018) 4 Cal.5th 989, 1004.) “On appeal, we review all circumstances relevant to the motion to determine whether the trial court’s decision was so arbitrary as to deprive the movant of due process.” (Ibid.) “[A] number of factors are relevant to a determination of good 14 cause: (1) the nature and strength of the justification for the delay, (2) the duration of the delay, and (3) the prejudice to either the defendant or the prosecution that is likely to result from the delay. [Citations]. Past decisions further establish that in making its good-cause determination, a trial court must consider all of the relevant circumstances of the particular case, ‘applying principles of common sense to the totality of circumstances . . . .’” (People v. Sutton (2010) 48 Cal.4th 533, 546.) A trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to continue is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1037.) We defer to a court’s discretionary rulings unless they exceed all bounds of reason. (People v. Cross (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 63, 73.) “The party challenging a ruling on a continuance bears the burden of establishing an abuse of discretion, and an order denying a continuance is seldom successfully attacked.” (People v. Beames (2007) 40 Cal.4th 907, 920.) To establish prejudice in the denial of a motion to continue, a defendant must affirmatively show a reasonable probability that a result more favorable to him would have occurred in the absence of the alleged error. (People v. Villa (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 443, 453, citing People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).) “While we consider all circumstances relevant to a ruling on a motion for a continuance, we focus particular attention on the reasons actually given for the request. [Citation.] ‘“There are no mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to violate due process. The answer must be found in the circumstances present in every case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied.”’” (People v. Reed, supra, 4 Cal.5th at pp. 1004–1005.) 15  2. Trial Court Proceedings On April 3, 2025, Ferguson filed a section 1050 motion to continue the date of the retrial. An attached declaration stated in full: “I, Cameron Talley, declare: [¶] I am the attorney representing the defendant, Jeffrey Ferguson, in the above [entitled matter.] The following facts exist that make a continuance necessary in this case: Counsel is engaged in a Felony trial in Central Justice Center department C5, People v. Jose Castro Zuniga, Case No. 21HF038911. Counsel respectfully requests a reasonable continuance. Additionally, I do not have the services of Kavch Newm[a]n for the retrial. I need to find someone to fill this role as second chair. I’ve had discussions with an attorney and reached a tentative agreement with her, but I need to finalize her status, and she is not available until May due to previous commitments. Also, after reviewing the case and strategizing for the retrial, I have decided it is imperative to obtain a medical expert to testify regarding Mr. Ferguson’s shoulder injuries. In the retrial, I anticipate this issue will be even more crucial and my professional judgement is that an expert is needed. Also, I need to arrange for firearm expert Greg Block to test fire the gun. On a personal note, my ex-wife (my sons’ mother) has been seriously ill with lung cancer and is now in the hospital with a collapsed lung last week. I need to be there for my sons during this challenging time for them.” On April 7, the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to continue the retrial. The court stated that it had reviewed Talley’s declaration. The court inquired, “Mr. Talley, you said you’re currently engaged in trial?” Talley said he had announced “ready for trial” in two cases. Talley said, “I thought in good faith I would be engaged in trial. Technically, I’m not.” The court responded, “I was thinking maybe you have a different 16 definition of being in trial than I do. At this point, you’re not engaged in trial. That was one of the reasons.” The trial court moved on to the next reason given for the motion to continue: Talley’s lack of a “second chair” counsel. Talley explained his former second chair (Newman) was no longer available, and a likely replacement (Prizzia) was currently in trial, and would not be available “until the first day of June.” The court said, “I don’t believe that’s good cause to wait for a second chair. You’re more than capable, and a second chair is more of a luxury. So I find that that does not amount to good cause.” The trial court moved on the next reason given for the continuance: obtaining an expert to testify as to Ferguson’s shoulder injury. The court asked Talley, “Anything else you want to add to that?” Talley said in the first trial he had attempted to call Ferguson’s personal physicians to testify, but he was unable to get them to do so. Talley said, “I think in the second case, now that, as the Court said, the cat is out of the bag and . . . the prosecution will understand more completely what the defense is, I think it’s absolutely crucial I have a physician to be able to talk about Mr. Ferguson’s shoulder and the fact that he is missing three or four tendons . . . .” The prosecutor said that he did not dispute that Ferguson had a shoulder injury, but “[w]hether it causes twitching, we dispute that, or the ability to aim and point and pull a trigger, that’s very different than just having a shoulder injury.” After hearing additional arguments from Talley, the court said, “This isn’t anything new. I assume, taking [Ferguson] at his word, that that defense was there on day one. Any need for a physician to verify [the shoulder injury], you obviously knew about it before the trial because you just said you had questioned his doctor. At this point, I’m going to find that that is not good cause.” 17  The trial court moved on to the next reason for the continuance: the need to have Block test fire the gun. Talley argued the location of the expended shell casing was part of the defense. Talley said, “Well, now that [the prosecution is] on to that, I want to preempt those kind of arguments. I believe the cartridge casing, the evidence will show, will consistently eject anywhere from 5 to 10 to 12 feet to the right.” The court asked, “Regardless of any obstruction, the ground, people walking around, that a cartridge casing is always going to be in the exact same location, an expert is going to say that?” Talley responded, “Of course not. That would be contrary to common sense . . . .” But Talley wanted to have Block “test-fire the firearm to show that it was properly functioning . . . . Exactly where it can land or exactly where somebody could kick it or move it, that’s a separate issue.” The trial court said, “Again, this has been around for a long time. You did actually have a gun expert on your witness list last time.” The court noted that an officer testified in the first trial “that typically, if a gun is in the normal position, that it ejects to the right and it could be a range of distance. Then it all depends how the gun is held. Your position was it was held on its side, and that’s what accounts for the casing being somewhat between, I think, the coffee table and the couch. [¶] So that’s actually -- you could still make that argument, certainly.” After hearing further argument, the trial court ruled, “The Court’s going to find that is not good cause either. You certainly had the time if you thought it was that crucial. I think you still have the ability to call the witness. You certainly have an ability to cross-examine any witness that testifies, and it’s not such an unusual type of an opinion whereby that you need a specialized person. This is just the general mechanics of a firearm. I’m going not to find good cause there.” 18  The trial court then moved on to the last reason given for the continuance: Talley’s personal issue as to his ex-wife’s illness. After Talley spoke more about this, the court said, “Did you announce ready last week?” Talley agreed that he had, but he said the illness had since progressed. The court said, “Well, I appreciate your dilemma . . . , and if something happens during the course of the trial, certainly, let us know, but at this point, I’m going to say that does not constitute good cause. [¶] We have a jury outside.” Talley then said, “Your Honor, just let me make one last record. I actually called the State Bar ethics hotline this morning. I told them I was not ready. I am not competent to go forward. I certainly can’t do it without an assistant.” Talley said he was advised “that were I to proceed when I am not ready. I could be subject to sanctions or penalties.” The trial court said, “Well, Counsel, here’s the problem is that we’re in a different posture. You have tried this case before. This is not a complicated case in any way, shape, or form. It’s not factually complicated. I think everybody pretty much is on board with regard to the facts, with the exception of Mr. Ferguson saying that his son is wrong with regard to how he is remembering seeing his father point the gun at his mom and the words that were said. [¶] There’s very few things that are really in dispute in this case. Most of it are police officers just coming and saying yes, that’s me on the body-worn camera, and there’s Mr. Ferguson saying X, Y, and Z. We have a video of your client [and] certainly clips were taken out and played for the jury and that is just your client talking. “With regard to any kind of forensic, there is not really an issue with regard to any coroner. It’s not DNA. The firearm, we know your client was the one that pulled the trigger that killed his wife. ID is not an issue. “It comes down to a legal determination between . . . second- 19 degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. That is even very, very narrow because the intentional act is really him taking out a firearm, knowing that he is intoxicated, and pointing it in the direction of his wife, whether it’s on his palm or whether it’s as it’s typically held as with what Mr. Ferguson’s son testified to.” “And the Court has had the benefit of going through the first trial and seeing what the case is. Now, I don’t know who you spoke with on the ethical line, but in this situation, you were ready before. It’s only been 28 days, and there’s no reason to believe that you were not -- you’re a great attorney, Mr. Talley. Certainly, you were able to convince one person for the involuntary manslaughter. I’m sure you’re hoping to convince the panel that it was an accident and he’s not liable at all. “There is no absolute right to a second chair. I don’t care what the People do. No offense against Mr. Cunningham, but he really -- he was there and maybe he helped organize and he did maybe one or two witnesses. For the most part, it was Mr. Hunt. They could have 25 attorneys from the DA’s office. That doesn’t mean anything. I am confident that you will proceed in the professional way. After we pick a jury, you want to take a day, we can certainly do that, but we’re ready to go.” 5 Talley said, “Okay. Your Honor, I just would like to point out -- I appreciate the Court’s confidence in me, but I know what I need to be prepared.” The trial court concluded, “I’m not going to hear further argument. I said what I have said. You said what you said. We are ready to go.” 5 The jury selection began after the continuance hearing on Monday, April 7, 2025, and concluded on Tuesday April 8, at 11:30 a.m. The court then excused the jurors and ordered them to return on Monday, April 14, which is when opening arguments and the People’s case-in-chief began. 20  3. Application and Analysis “A trial court’s discretion cannot be arbitrary but rather must be ‘guided and controlled by fixed legal principles, to be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law, and in a manner to subserve and not to impede or defeat the ends of substantial justice.’ [Citation.] ‘[A]ll exercises of legal discretion must be grounded in reasoned judgment and guided by legal principles and policies appropriate to the particular matter at issue.’” (Small v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1014.) Here, the trial court was plainly guided by the appropriate legal principle—a good cause finding—that was required to grant a continuance of Ferguson’s retrial under section 1050. This was demonstrated by the court’s repeated findings—a lack of good cause—as it systematically considered each of Talley’s proffered reasons for the continuance. The court was also plainly conversant with the relevant evidence, as demonstrated by its detailed recitation of the pertinent facts from Ferguson’s first trial, and the court’s explanation of how those facts factored into its analysis. In sum, the trial court clearly did not approach its decision in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Quite the opposite. The court made a decision that was grounded in the appropriate law and the relevant facts. (See Small v. Superior Court, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 1014 [“‘[a]ll exercises of legal discretion must be grounded in reasoned judgment and guided by legal principles and policies appropriate to the particular matter at issue’”].) Thus, we affi