CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is of an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissing, without a hearing, the Appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petition arises out of the Appellant’s conviction, by a jury, for unlawful possession of a blackjack, Mich.Stat.Ann. § 28.421, M.C. L.A. § 750.224 (1960), and the imposition of a four-year nine-month to five-year prison sentence upon him. During and after his trial, the Appellant raised the following issues, inter alia: first, whether the state trial judge’s refusal to grant the Appellant a continuance until [1240]*1240his chief counsel was released from the hospital, where he was undergoing diagnostic tests, deprived the Appellant of due process of law; second, whether the search of the Appellant’s home, incident to his arrest, which resulted in the discovery and seizure of the blackjack, was unreasonable. These issues were treated in a scholarly, 100-page series of unreported opinions by the trial judge, Honorable Victor J. Baum; they were considered by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Appellant’s conviction, People v. Giacalone, 23 Mich. App. 163, 178 N.W.2d 162 (1970); and by the Michigan Supreme Court, 383 Mich. 786 (1970), which denied the Appellant’s motion for leave to appeal, two justices dissenting. Having exhausted his state remedies, the Appellant sought habeas corpus in the District Court. Having lost there, he appeals to this Court. We affirm.
I.
A motion by a criminal defendant for a continuance of the trial until his retained counsel can be present is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589-590, 84 S.Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964); Kobey v. United States, 208 F.2d 583, 592-594 (9th Cir. 1953); United States v. Arlen, 252 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1958). Cf. Callahan v. Russell, 423 F.2d 450, 454-456 (6th Cir. 1970); United States v. Knight, 443 F.2d 174 (6th Cir. 1971).
Proper exercise of this discretion requires a delicate balance between the defendant’s right to adequate representation of counsel at trial, and the public interest in the prompt and efficient administration of justice. On the one hand, a court may not insist upon expeditiousness for its own sake, but, on the other, a defendant cannot be allowed to insist upon unreasonable delay or inconvenience in the completion of his trial. What is a reasonable delay varies depending upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances. Williams v. United States, 332 F.2d 36 (7th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 976, 85 S.Ct. 672, 13 L.Ed.2d 566; Mende v. United States, 282 F.2d 881 (9th Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 933, 81 S.Ct. 379, 5 L.Ed.2d 365, reh. denied, 365 U.S. 825, 81 S.Ct. 689, 5 L.Ed.2d 704; Relerford v. United States, 309 F.2d 706, 708 (9th Cir. 1962); Relerford v. United States, 288 F.2d 298, 301-302 (9th Cir. 1961); Lee v. United States, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 272, 235 F.2d 219, 221 (1956); Shores v. United States, 80 F.2d 942 (9th Cir. 1936), cert. denied, 297 U.S. 705, 56 S.Ct. 501, 80 L.Ed. 993; Lias v. United States, 51 F.2d 215 (4th Cir. 1931), aff’d per curiam, 284 U.S. 584, 52 S.Ct. 128, 76 L.Ed. 505; Hardie v. United States, 22 F.2d 803 (5th Cir. 1927), cert. denied, 276 U.S. 636, 48 S.Ct. 421, 72 L.Ed. 744. Some of the factors to be considered in the determination of reasonableness are: the length of the delay requested; whether the lead counsel has associates prepared to try the case in his absence; whether other continuances have been requested and received; the convenience or inconvenience to litigants, witnesses, opposing counsel, and the court; whether the delay seems to be for legitimate reasons, or whether it is purposeful and dilatory; and other relevant factors. Considering the totality of circumstances in the instant case, we believe that the trial .judge’s refusal to grant a continuance until the Appellant’s chief counsel, Mr. Joseph W. Louisell, left the hospital where he was undergoing diagnostic tests for a heart condition, was proper, and that it did not infringe upon the Appellant’s constitutional rights.
The Appellant was arrested on May 14, 1968 and charged with the unlawful possession of a blackjack. The case was docketed before the Michigan Circuit Court for trial on October 14, 1968, however, the trial judge granted a defense request for a continuance until October 21, 1968, in order that Mr. Louisell have an opportunity to prepare and argue another case that week. One other continuance for the convenience of defense [1241]*1241counsel was granted by the trial court before the case ultimately came to trial.
At the time the Appellant was arrested and charged with possession of the blackjack, he was also charged with two other felonies. The task of docketing these three eases for trials at times when Mr. Louisell would be available proved to be a formidable one. For one reason, Mr. Louisell suffered from a heart condition, which required attention. On September 2, 1968, Mr. Loui-sell completed arrangements to enter the Ann Arbor, Michigan hospital for certain non-emergency, diagnostic tests on Sunday, November 10, 1968. Compounding the problem further was the fact that Mr. Louisell had a very heavy caseload. In particular, Mr. Louisell was defense counsel in a criminal case in the federal court in Detroit, which was to be tried in November. The district judge to whom the federal case had been assigned anticipated that it would be a protracted affair, with over two hundred witnesses.
After some delicate negotiations, an agreement was reached between Mr. Louisell, the trial judge, and the district judge, under which the four cases in which Mr. Louisell was defense counsel could be heard within a reasonable time, and without interfering with each other or with Mr. Louisell’s appointment in Ann Arbor. Under the agreement, to which Mr. Louisell gave complete assent, the Appellant would be tried on the first of his charges in early November, then tried on the blackjack charge on Thursday, November 14, 1968, then tried on the third charge after the federal case in which Mr.. Louisell was defense counsel was completed. Under the agreement, the trial in the federal court was to begin on Monday, November 18, 1968. Mr. Louisell gave his assent to the agreement on November 7, 1968. According to the trial judge, Mr. Louisell assured the court that his tests would be completed, and that he would be prepared. to try the blackjack case on November 14.
Mr. Louisell practices in the firm of Louisell and Barris, with two other lawyers. Mr. Ivan E. Barris, his partner, and Mr. Neil H. Fink, his associate, collaborated, according to the undisputed findings of the trial court, on all the cases in which the Appellant was involved. Mr. Fink and Mr. Barris shared the responsibilities of examination of witnesses and arguing to the jury with Mr. Louisell. According to the trial court, the three worked as a team. As for the ability of the three lawyers, the trial court stated:
“The three lawyers are indeed remarkable men. All three are excellent advocates. Each is an outstanding craftsman of the law. Each is gifted in establishing and maintaining rapport with juries. Each is talented in eliciting direct testimony. Each is brilliant in cross-examination. Each is superb in arguing to juries. Each is a master in arguing law to judges. Each is capable of giving the defendant an outstanding defense.”
From the record, it is undisputed that all three lawyers were familiar with, and prepared to try, the blackjack case on November 14, 1968.
On Tuesday, November 12, 1968, Mr. Fink informed the trial judge that Mr. Louisell’s tests would last longer than they had previously anticipated, and that Mr. Louisell would not be available for trial on Thursday, November 14, 1968, when the blackjack case was scheduled. Mr. Fink requested a continuance in order that Mr. Louisell be able to remain in the hospital and still try the case. When asked how long a continuance would be necessary, Mr. Fink was unable to say. No medical certificate or affidavit was presented to the trial court. The trial judge spoke on more than one occasion with Mr. Louisell’s doctor in Ann Arbor, and was informed that Mr. Louisell’s life was not in danger, but that it was recommended that he remain in the hospital to complete the tests. Mr. Fink reminded the trial court that although the federal case had been [1242]*1242scheduled for November 18, the district court had expressed a willingness to begin the trial a few days later, if necessary; and he stated that the blackjack case would not take more than a day to try. Nevertheless, the trial court denied the continuance, compelling the Appellant to trial with Messrs. Barris and Fink as his attorneys. The Appellant did make oral protests that he wanted Mr. Louisell as his counsel, but, when informed of the denial of the continuance, made no objection whatsoever to being represented by Messrs. Barris and Fink, and made no attempt to obtain other counsel.
The Appellant was tried and convicted. There is no contention that Messrs. Barris and Fink did not perform well, or that the Appellant’s trial itself was anything other than a model of fairness.
Nevertheless, the Appellant continued to object to the denial of the continuance. On November 29, 1968, he filed a motion for a new trial, reciting the denial of a continuance as one of the grounds. No affidavit was filed and no sworn testimony was proffered regarding Mr. Louisell's unavailability, or regarding any danger to Mr. Louisell’s life or health if he had appeared for the trial of the blackjack ease. On December 6, 1968, an oral argument was made on the motion. During the oral argument, neither affidavits nor sworn testimony was proffered, nor did the Appellant move orally or in writing to supplement the record, even when told he could do so. On December 9, 1968, a supplemental motion for new trial was filed, and four days later a hearing took place. Neither in the motion nor at the hearing was there any sworn testimony proffered or presented.
Only on January 31, 1969, did the Appellant file a “Motion For Order Granting Evidentiary Hearing,” in which he requested an evidentiary hearing and proffered testimony regarding Mr. Louisell’s unavailability. The trial court held that the time for such a motion had had expired, and denied it. [The trial court’s opinion denying said motion is attached as “Appendix A”.]
The Appellant cites United States v. Johnston, 318 F.2d 288 (6th Cir. 1963) as precedent in his argument that the trial judge in the instant case abused his discretion in refusing the continuance. In Johnston, the defendant was charged with mail fraud and wire fraud, and with conspiracy to commit each offense. He was also represented by Mr. Louisell who, on the date of trial, appeared in court with Mr. Barris, and informed the court that because of an “imperative commitment” to argue a case before the Supreme Court of Michigan, he would be unable to try the defendant’s case. He informed the court, however, that Mr. Barris had collaborated with him in every case he had handled for eight years, and that since Mr. Barris had participated in the pre-trial phase of the case and was conversant with the indictment, he would be able to try the case in Mr. Louisell’s stead. The defendant objected to this arrangement, said he had confidence in Mr. Louisell but did not know Mr. Barris, and requested time to retain a lawyer he had confidence in. The District Court denied the request, forcing the defendant to go to trial with Mr. Barris. Our Court reversed, holding that the District Court erred in not allowing the defendant a fair opportunity and reasonable time to employ counsel of his own choosing.
The Johnston case is distinguishable in several critical respects from the instant case. First, the defendant had made vigorous efforts to obtain another lawyer after Mr. Louisell abandoned him. His efforts were in vain. In the instant case, the Appellant made no attempt to retain another lawyer. Second, in the Johnston case, the trial court had no reason to believe the delay would be a long one; whereas, in the instant case, the Appellant’s request was virtually open-ended. The court was given no assurance that Mr. Louisell would be prepared to try the blackjack case before the federal case began, and, if he was [1243]*1243not, the delay could have been as much as one-third of a year. In the Johnston case, the defendant stated he had no confidence in Mr. Barris. In the instant case, the Appellant stated he preferred Mr. Louisell, but made no objection to the representation of Messrs. Barris and Fink. Johnston does not indicate whether the defendant had asked for or received prior continuances. In the instant case, the Appellant had had two. In Johnston, the reasons why counsel would be unavailable were stated in open court. In the instant case, no documentation was ever made of the reasons why Mr. Louisell would be unable to attend.
“The matter of continuance is traditionally within the discretion of the trial judge. * * * 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.” Ungar v. Sarafite, supra, 376 U.S. at 589, 84 S.Ct. at 849 (emphasis added.)
Mr. Louisell’s failure to provide the appropriate documentation at the time the request was made evidenced, at least, a cavalier disregard for the process of the court and the rights of his client. We need not consider the trial court’s finding that it was part of a concerted scheme to perpetrate a fraud upon the court and system of justice.
In summary, we do not believe the trial judge’s denial of a continuance was an abuse of discretion for the following reasons: Mr. Louisell was in the hospital voluntarily, for a nonemergency checkup; associate counsel were available and prepared to try the case; the request for delay was open ended — it could have been four months or more before Mr. Louisell would again become available for trial of the case; the request for a continuance was not the first, but the third that had been made, all for the convenience of defense counsel; no competent proof was proffered showing how much notice the Appellant had that Mr. Louisell would be unavailable; no acceptable documentation of the reasons for the delay was proffered until over three months after the trial; the delay would work a very considerable inconvenience upon the court. In addition, we do not lose sight of the fact that the real issue here is whether Messrs. Barris and Fink properly and competently represented the Appellant. Williams v. United States, 332 F.2d 36, 39 (7th Cir. 1964), cert, denied, 379 U.S. 976, 85 S. Ct. 672, 13 L.Ed.2d 566. The trial judge, who witnessed the entire proceeding, and was in a favorable position to judge this aspect of the case stated:
“The instant blackjack case was tried for the defendant by Ivan Bar-ris, assisted by Neil Fink. Mr. Barris is a member of the law firm Louisell and Barris. Mr. Fink is an associate, employed full time by the firm. Mr. Barris is a highly experienced and skillful trial lawyer. He is one of the outstanding members of the Michigan bar. If he is surpassed in ability by any trial lawyer, this observer has not met him. Neil Fink’s experience is limited. However, he is licensed to practice and is a phenomenally gifted trial lawyer with skills which are astounding in view of his limited experience. Apart from the pretrial motions, in connection with which the defendant makes no claim of deprivation of counsel, the blackjack case was a simple one. Trial lasted only one day. The case was brilliantly and skillfully tried for the defendant by Barris and Fink. The defendant was more than adequately represented by them. For all his skill, Mr. Louisell could have done no better. The defendant was not prejudiced by Mr. Louisell’s failure to appear.”
The Appellant had a fair trial. Due process requires no more.
The Appellant’s contention that the District Court erred in refusing to grant an evidentiary hearing on this is[1244]*1244sue is without merit. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1964).
II.
The Appellant contends that the blackjack which was introduced against him in his state prosecution was obtained as a result of a search conducted in violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The following statement of the facts is derived from the record, the factual findings and the memorandum of the state trial court. That court’s findings of fact on the issues of the lawfulness of Appellant’s arrest and a search of his home were based upon a six-day hearing on a motion to suppress evidence. There is no indication that the “fact finding procedure employed by the state court was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing” or that the Appellant “did not receive a full, fair and adequate hearing” with an opportunity to fully develop all of the “material facts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended in 1966. The Appellant was permitted to call any witnesses with relevant information and he was allowed broad latitude in cross-examination. The testimony brought forth at the hearing on the motion to suppress evidence fully reflected all of the relevant available evidence which Appellant’s counsel chose to present.
Indeed, the only claim which Appellant lodges against any of the procedures used throughout the fact finding process is that the state trial court judge was prejudiced against him. As the District Court found after thoroughly reviewing the record, there is no merit in this vague claim. We conclude that the findings of fact made by the trial judge have been “reliably found.” Under these circumstances, we must defer to his factual findings, which are “presumed to be correct.” 28 U.S C. § 2254 (as amended, 1966); Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 318, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed. 2d 770 (1963).
On May 13, 1968, the Michigan State police secured a warrant for the arrest of the Appellant and thirteen other persons for conspiracy to commit extortion. The arrest warrant, which is stipulated to be valid on its face, was procured after a preliminary examination before a magistrate. The proofs before the magistrate established that the Michigan State police, the Chief Investigator of the Attorney General’s office and Detroit police had been carrying on an investigation of an alleged conspiracy to extort and that there was probable cause to believe that the Appellant was a participant in this conspiracy.
After a conference at the Federal Building in Detroit, a task force consisting of four agents of the Federal Internal Revenue Service, two Sterling Heights police officers, two Detroit police officers and one State police officer, Sergeant Mull, who was in charge of the task force, appeared at Appellant’s residence at 6:00 a. m. on May 14, 1968. The size of the arresting party may be explained in part by the fact that on a prior occasion an officer was assaulted while lawfully in the environs of the Appellant’s home. The composition of the arresting party, including members of the Intelligence Division of the Internal Revenue Service, suggests that contemporaneous with the lawful arrest of the Appellant, it was the intention of some of the arresting officers to conduct a search for evidence incident to the arrest of Appellant. The scope of their intended search and their intentions with regard to the arrest are not relevant to the instant case because the blackjack which was seized was not discovered as a result of any general exploratory search, as will be shown later.
The Appellant met Sergeant Mull and four arresting officers at the front door. The other officers had surrounded the house to prevent escape. One officer saw an unidentified person quickly open and close the back door before the Appellant opened the front door of his house. When he answered the door, Appellant was clothed in a pair of “shorty pajamas,” bedroom slippers and a robe, and a prosthesis was attached to his leg. [1245]*1245In the front foyer of the house, just inside the door, Sergeant Mull announced to the Appellant that he was under arrest for conspiracy to extort, quickly searched the person of Appellant and started to read the arrest warrant.
The Appellant announced he was ready to go. Sergeant Mull responded, “Well, can we go into another room, where I want to read the rest of this material [arrest warrant and Miranda warning] to you” and words to the effect “Well, you don’t want to go [before a magistrate in court] like that, and the way you’re dressed, in shorty pajamas and a robe.” Sergeant Mull then walked with the Appellant from the front foyer into the dining room where the light was better for reading. Sergeant Mull completed the reading of the arrest warrant and gave Appellant a Miranda warning. Thereafter, Appellant read the arrest warrant to himself and stated he was “ready to go.”
In response, Sergeant Mull suggested that it would be well for the Appellant to change from bed clothes to street clothes before leaving for the station and for his arraignment on the warrant before the Grosse Point Municipal Court. In the words of the trial court, “Vito Giacalone willingly accepted the suggestion.” In reference to the possible coercive effect of Sergeant Mull’s suggestion, the trial court found as follows :
“Vito Giacalone was dressed in short pajamas and a robe. He had a prosthesis on his right leg. He was about to go to a court of law. The Court finds that Mull’s suggestion that Vito Giacalone change from bed clothes to street clothes was perfectly reasonable and proper; that it was a suggestion, not a directive or an order; that Vito Giacalone readily accepted it without any sense of duress or compulsion; that Mull’s suggestion was made in good faith, without hidden or ulterior motive; and finally that Mull’s suggestion about the defendant’s attire was made without the intention or purpose of enabling the police to search the bedroom or any other area. This finding is corroborated by the fact that the officers upon entering the defendant’s bedroom did not immediately begin to search it, as will be seen.
Immediately after this exchange, the Appellant, Sergeant Mull and three or four officers went up the stairway and into the Appellant’s bedroom so he could get dressed. Upon entering the bedroom, the trial court found that
By word, gesture and overt act, the defendant [Appellant] showed that he wanted and intended to get clothes out of a chest of drawers in his bedroom. It was only after the defendant manifested such intention that Lieutenant Oakes said, ‘Wait a minute,’ in order to search the chest of drawers for possible weapon. He searched the drawers in the chest. Immediately he found a small arsenal. In the top drawer he found a blackjack or slap-jack and two .38 caliber six-shot revolvers, both loaded. In another drawer of the chest he found a third .38 caliber six-shot revolver. He found a fourth .38 caliber five-shot revolver in the same chest of drawers, and also in that chest of drawers a single-shot Derringer. Five handguns altogether were taken from the chest of drawers, at least two of which were loaded and ready to be fired.
The course of events from the arrival of the arresting party, the arrest by Sergeant Mull, the reading of the warrant, the giving of the Miranda warnings, the conversation about the appearance of Appellant in bed clothes before a court, and the repairing of the Appellant to his bedroom, where the blackjack was discovered in a drawer into which the Appellant was about to reach — all of these events form one single continuous flow of action which was the natural consequence of the arrest at 6:30 a. m. of a person at his home and in his bed clothes.
[1246]*1246It is significant to note that the conversation of Appellant and Sergeant Mull and the ensuing search which resulted in the discovery of the blackjack were largely unrelated to the more widespread search for evidence being conducted by certain of the members of the arresting party at, during and after the arrest.
Based on these facts the District Court denied Appellant’s petition for habeas corpus. In so doing, the District Court held that Appellant’s arrest was made in good faith and upon probable cause and not used as a subterfuge or pretext to make an otherwise impermissible search, Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493, 78 S.Ct. 1253, 2 L.Ed.2d 1514 (1958); United States v. James, 378 F.2d 88 (6th Cir. 1967); and further, it held that the search which uncovered the blackjack was a reasonable search incident to Appellant’s arrest, and that — insofar as the discovery of the blackjack was concerned — the search was not that of a general exploratory expedition. We agree.
We do not dispute Appellant’s contention that an arrest may not be used as a mere subterfuge by law enforcement to gain otherwise impermissible access to a person’s house, papers and possessions. Jones v. United States, supra; United States v. James, supra. In both Jones and James, the primary purpose of the arresting law enforcement officials was in making a warrantless, general exploratory search of the arrestee’s possessions. And in both Jones and James, the arresting law enforcement officials were not engaging in a “good faith” arrest of the accused. As the United States Supreme Court stated in Jones v. United States:
“The testimony of the federal officers makes clear beyond dispute that their purpose in entering was to search [the premises] * * * not to arrest petitioner.”
The rationale of the Jones and James cases is inapplicable to the instant case. The facts produced at the hearings in the trial court unquestionably support the conclusion that the arrest of the Appellant was based on probable cause, was in “good faith,” and was not used as a mere pretext to engage in an otherwise unlawful warrantless search. The extensive investigation of law enforcement officials prior to the arrest, the evidence adduced by state police to a magistrate before the arrest warrant issued, and the diligent attempts by Michigan law enforcement officials to convict the Appellant on the charge for which he was arrested are ample evidence that the arrest of Appellant was not a mere subterfuge to justify an incidental search.
It is true, of course, that contemporaneous with the lawful arrest of the Appellant it was the intent of at least some of the law enforcement officers involved to engage in a rather general search of Appellant’s house after Appellant had been arrested and their safety had been assured. The desire of an arresting officer to initiate a search incident to a lawful “good faith” arrest does not convert that lawful arrest into an unlawful subterfuge to conduct an impermissible search. In arrests prior to Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), which is not to be applied retroactively, see, Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646, 91 S.Ct. 1148, 28 L.Ed.2d 388 (1971), it was not unusual for arresting police to have an intent contemporaneous with a lawful arrest to search the arrestee’s home, possessions, and papers for evidence of the purported crime or related crimes of the arrestee. Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797, 91 S.Ct. 1106, 28 L.Ed.2d 484 (1971); United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950); Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 67 S.Ct. 1098, 91 L.Ed. 1399 (1947). Applying the principles of Hill, Rabinowitz, and Harris— each of which involves thorough searches of an entire office or apartment — we may conclude that prior to Chimel v. California, supra, a search did not become unlawful because contemporaneous with a good faith arrest based upon [1247]*1247probable cause, the arresting officer also intended to search for evidence of the arrestee’s alleged crimes. See Williams v. United States, supra.
The Appellant also contends that even if his arrest was lawful, that the ensuing search which revealed the blackjack was an unreasonable general exploratory search. We do not agree.
We need not concern ourselves with the activities of each of the officers in the arresting party. The only evidence sought to be introduced in this case is the blackjack discovered by law enforcement authorities after the Appellant had been arrested and informed of his rights and as by word, gesture, and overt act, the Appellant manifested an intention of reaching into a drawer in his bedroom bureau which contained the blackjack and other lethal weapons. There is sufficient evidence to support the determination of every court which has reviewed the evidence that Appellant’s decision to walk from the dining room to his bedroom in order to change into more appropriate clothing was voluntary and consensual. Certainly, if immediately after a lawful arrest, the arrestee reads the arrest warrant and without coercion consents to go to his bedroom to change into more appropriate clothing, the arresting officers — incident to that arrest — may search the areas upon which the arrestee focuses his attention and are within his reach to gain access to a weapon or to destroy evidence.
The principle that law enforcement officials to protect their own safety may search the area within the immediate control of a person whom they have arrested has never been seriously challenged. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1967); Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 46 S.Ct. 4, 70 L.Ed. 145 (1925). And in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), the United States Supreme Court affirmed the continuing validity of this principle when it observed:
“A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. There is ample justification, therefore, for a search of the arrestee’s person and the area ‘within his immediate control’— construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” 395 U.S. at 763, 89 S.Ct. at 2040.
Applying these principles, the arrest of Appellant was lawful and the decision of the Appellant to enter his bedroom was reasonably close to the time and place of arrest and pursuant to a reasonable lawful purpose of changing out of one’s bed clothes before leaving. The discovery of the blackjack in the bedroom was the result of a search directed by the arresting officer of the area within the intended reach of the arres-tee. Under such circumstances, the discovery of the blackjack was reasonably incident to the Appellant’s arrest.
It was not necessary to explore the lawfulness of the search as it relates to any other items which were seized, nor is it necessary to speculate on the lawfulness of the search had the arrestee been compelled to enter his bedroom at the direction of law enforcement officials.
We have considered the remaining issues raised by Appellant and find them without merit.
The decision of the District Court denying Appellant’s petition for habeas corpus is hereby affirmed.
APPENDIX A
OPINION ON MOTION FOR EVIDEN-TIARY HEARING
(Circuit Court — County of Wayne)
(Filed February 11, 1969)
(People v. Vito Giacalone)
On or about November 7, 1968, a short continuance of the blackjack trial [1248]*1248was granted until November 14 to enable Mr. Louisell to enter the hospital for diagnostic tests on his assurance that he would be present for trial on the adjourned date.
On the morning of November 12, defense counsel made an oral motion to continue the blackjack trial indefinitely until Mr. Louisell would be available to try the case. In support of the motion it was alleged orally that Mr. Louisell could not leave the hospital. No affidavit or sworn testimony accompanied this motion. The motion was denied.
Later in the day, on November 12, defense counsel made an oral motion for rescission of the change of venue. The principal ground was that Mr. Louisell would not be available to try the case and Mr. Fink was uneasy about empathy between himself and a St. Joseph County jury. There was no affidavit or sworn testimony submitted regarding Mr. Louisell’s unavailability. The motion for rescission of the change of venue was denied.
On November 14, defense counsel made it clear that the Court was proceeding to trial contrary to the defendant’s preference that Mr. Louisell should be present as defense counsel. This was a renewal of the position earlier taken by the defendant on November 12. On November 14 again it was made to appear by defense counsel that Mr. Loui-sell was confined to the hospital, and there was in effect another request for a continuance on this ground, among others. This was likewise an oral request. Like the prior oral request for adjournment, this request was unaccompanied by supporting affidavit or sworn testimony regarding Mr. Louisell’s unavailability. On November 14, Ivan Barris, one of the defendant’s attorneys, sought to reserve the right to supplement the record. The remarks of the Court clearly encouraged the filing of a motion to supplement the record. However, no such motion to supplement accompanied the next pleading or court appearance.
On November 15, 1968, there was a post conviction hearing on bond. No sworn evidence was presented or offered regarding Mr. Louisell’s hospitalization, nor was there any motion, written or oral, to supplement the record in connection with Mr. Louisell’s hospitalization.
On or about November 29, 1968, a written motion for new trial was filed. In this motion, one of the grounds urged by defendant was that he was unconstitutionally deprived of the right to counsel and unconstitutionally denied due process of law in that he was forced to trial while counsel of his choice was unavailable. No affidavit was filed and no sworn testimony was proffered regarding Mr. Louisell’s unavailability in support of the motion for new trial. Nor was the motion for new trial accompanied by a motion to supplement the record regarding Mr. Louisell’s hospitalization.
On December 5, the defendant was sentenced. At the sentencing hearing, no affidavits regarding Mr. Louisell’s hospitalization were filed and no proofs on this subject were presented or proffered, nor was a motion filed, either orally or in writing, requesting a supplementation of the record respecting Mr. Louisell’s hospitalization.
On December 6, oral argument was heard on the motion for new trial. In the course of oral argument, neither affidavits nor sworn testimony were presented or proffered concerning Mr. Louisell’s hospitalization. Nor did the defendant orally or in writing move for an opportunity to supplement the record in this regard. Indeed, Mr. Louisell said
“ * * * on reading the transcript of the proceedings at Centreville, I notice that you told Mr. Barris that Mr. Barris might, or I might, be accorded an opportunity to supplement the record with respect to my hospitalization.
“I don’t think at this posture that it is a matter with which we are ger-manely concerned on the motion for new trial.”
Thereafter Mr. Louisell went on to make certain unsworn pronouncements con[1249]*1249cerning his hospitalization which tended to confirm this Court’s belief that his hospitalization was an elective, non-emergency visit for diagnostic tests for his own convenience, and not for the purpose of treating any disabling illness.
In the course of oral argument on the motion for new trial, the Court made it clear that evidence was lacking of Mr. Louisell’s availability. The Court said,
“If a man wants to be excused from trial because of illness, he ought to present some solid testimony, or an affidavit at least.”
To Mr. Louisell’s unsworn argument that he remained in the hospital beyond November 14 on the insistence of four physicians, the Court replied,
“Well, that may have been your choice. There was no court order keeping you in that hospital.”
The Court’s skepticism is further demonstrated in the following reply to Mr. Louisell’s argument that he had an obligation to his family, to his children, as well as to the Court:
“The Court: That obligation didn’t keep you from being out actively practicing law on the 18th day of November.”
Further the Court said:
“Well, as I see it, you did not make any adequate predicate for a continuance. * * * As I see it, you were expected to try a ease on behalf of your client on November 14, and for your own convenience did not.”
Despite the clear manifestation by the Court on December 6 that Mr. Louisell’s incapacity was not established to the Court’s satisfaction, at the next opportune moment no affidavits were filed and no sworn testimony presented or proffered regarding Mr. Louisell’s hospitalization.
The next opportune moment came on or about December 9, 1968, when a supplement to the motion for a new trial was filed. No affidavit concerning Mr. Louisell’s hospitalization accompanied the supplement to the motion for new trial. Nor was there any sworn testimony presented or proffered at the hearing upon the supplement to the motion for a new trial which took place on December 13, 1968.
Only after long and arduous toil by the Court in research, in studying authorities, in arriving at a decision on the motion for a new trial, and in reducing the decision to writing, did the defendant seek to supplement the record concerning Mr. Louisell’s hospitalization. One can only conclude that the defendant and defense counsel speculated upon the outcome of the motion for a new trial, and only after it was adversely decided did they seek an evidentiary hearing respecting Mr. Louisell’s hospitalization.
General Court Rule 503 deals with continuances. Subsection 1 is as follows:
“1 Policy. It is the policy of this rule to encourage the diligent preparation and trial of cases. Continuance for any cause shall not be granted unless a showing is made and the court finds that the grounds for continuance do not arise out of the fault or negligence of the moving party and the court finds that substantial justice more nearly will be obtained.”
The local Wayne Circuit Court rule applicable to postponements in criminal cases provides:
“No trial of a criminal case shall be adjourned except by the Presiding Judge for good cause shown upon written motion of the party seeking the adjournment.”
Neither the spirit nor the letter of these rules was complied with by the defendant. A “showing” of “grounds” for continuance was not made as required under Rule 503, nor was a timely motion in writing filed before the Presiding Judge as required by Rule 31, Part B, Subpara-graph 9 of the local court rule.
Apart from these rules, and even if we regard them as directory rather than mandatory, this motion for evidentiary hearing comes too late.
[1250]*1250The proper time for proof of Mr. Louisell’s disability was on November 12 when the motion for continuance was first made. Perhaps such proofs would not have been too late if offered when court opened in Centreville on the 14th day of November. Such proofs were not proffered nor the point preserved in the hearing on bond on November 15. Such proofs were not proffered nor was the point preserved at the time of the sentence hearing. Certainly such proofs should have been proffered not later than the date of filing of the motion for new trial on November 29. Extending great charity to the defendant, perhaps it would not have been an abuse of the trial judge’s discretion to have considered sworn proofs if proffered by December 6, December 9, or December 13. The last date is the date of oral argument on the supplement to the motion for new trial. It is the date on which motion for new trial was submitted to the Court for disposition.
Up to this very moment, there has been no showing that in the exercise of reasonable diligence, sworn proof could not have been offered on or before the trial on November 14. A fortiori there has been no showing that sworn proof could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been submitted in connection with the motion for new trial and supplement thereto.
“To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.” 1 On November 12, the timely moment for a showing under oath, the trees were not yet altogether barren of autumn leaves. The leaves have long since gone. Indeed, the first snows had fallen by the time the motion for new trial was filed. The winter solstice has come and gone. Only now we are told, after a decision adverse to the defendant on a motion for new trial, that an evi-dentiary hearing is sought to supplement the record regarding Mr. Louisell’s hospitalization. And parenthetically, still there are no physician’s affidavits accompanying this motion.
If a modicum of order is to be preserved in the proceedings of trial courts, points must be urged with evidence in support at the relevant timely moment. The time for evidentiary support of the oral petition for continuance was before trial. The time for evidentiary support of the assertion of the right to chosen counsel was likewise before trial. Or if this could not be done in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the time for sworn support of the request for continuance and the time for sworn support of assertion of the right to chosen counsel was as soon after trial as reasonable diligence permitted. Now a jury trial has been completed. Much human effort, much expense, much inconvenience, much tribulation attended that trial. There followed two post conviction hearings, and after such hearings there followed a motion for new trial, filed and argued in two steps. At none of these stages in the proceedings were sworn proofs presented or tendered. At none of these acts in the drama was there an oral or written application for an opportunity to supplement the record regarding Mr. Louisell’s hospitalization.
Much human effort and anguish of decision attended the disposition of the motion for new trial. True, the decision on motion for new trial considered the possibility of genuine physical incapacity or disability on the part of lead counsel and held that even such disability would not warrant the continuance sought (since the delay sought was unreasonably long and uncertain in duration). However, the disposition of the motion unquestionably relied heavily on the absence of competent evidence of disability. At the very latest, such evidence should have been submitted before the motion for new trial was placed in the Court’s hands for decision, particularly in view of the skepticism expressed by the Court during oral argument of the motion on December 6.
[1251]*1251There is such a thing in the law as simply being too late. The instant motion is just that. If courts do not require timely presentation of issues, our system of criminal justice will be beset with delay, disorder, and disarray. If courts do not require timely presentation of issues, wasted time and effort will be built into the administration of criminal justice, along with one more loophole for loophole-seekers.
There is a season for everything, and everything in season. The season for a motion such as this one is long since past. In season, this judicial drama has had a tremendous amount of time and attention. The Court must in fairness to other litigants be heedful of other cases, about 1300 in number, which are this Court’s individual responsibility. The motion for continuance must be tested by the showing which accompanied the motion. The motion for new trial must be tested by the showing which accompanied that motion. It would be a misallocation of judicial time to hear stale evidence which can no longer properly affect the Court’s judgment. To do this, with approximately 1300 other cases awaiting hearing, some for over three years, would be most unfair to other litigants. Vito Giacalone has had more than his fair share of judicial attention. It is time for the trial court curtain to drop on this judicial drama. It is time for the Court’s attention to be directed to other litigation. For these reasons the motion is denied.
Dated this 11th day of February, 1969.
Victor J. Baum
Circuit Judge