“The significant circumstance is the trial court's action in denying the motion on the one hand, while granting the defendant a continuance on the other. This action indicates that any delay which may have occurred had the jury request been granted would not have prejudiced the legitimate interests of the prosecution or the court.”); Staten v. Maryland, 13 Md.App. 425, 430, 283 A.2d 644, 647 (1971) (stating "It is patent in the instant case the lower court did not feel that the withdrawal of the waiver would unduly delay the trial for it in fact postponed the trial, which was then not had for almost a month. Nor was there any reasonable indication that justice would be impeded by the withdrawal of the waiver.”); People v. Abrams, 211 Cal.App.2d 773, 776, 27 Cal.Rptr. 639, 641 (1963)
holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to continue trial three months where although trial was complex and records were voluminous court had already granted two prior continuances and continuance of three weeks was sufficient to prepare for trial holding that the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing defendant to withdraw his waiver of jury trial where a lengthy continuance already had been granted holding the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendants motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the defendant did not admit to facts demonstrating the required mental state holding that trial counsel did not abuse its discretion by denying a continuance where appellant failed to specify the evidence which might have been revealed if the continuance had been granted and counsel had been afforded the opportunity to investigate further holding that the trial court had abused its discretion in dismissing the case without allowing appellants an opportunity to amend