Commonwealth v. Norton, 144 A.3d 139, 143 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted). "We will not reverse a trial court's decision absent a showing of … prejudice to the defendant."

Commonwealth v. Norton, 144 A.3d 139, 143 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted).

Accordingly, we must examine the reasons presented to the trial court for requesting the continuance, as well as the trial court's reasons for denying the request. Commonwealth v. Norton , 144 A.3d 139, 143 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citations omitted and some formatting altered). Here, the trial court addressed Appellant's request for a continuance as follows:

overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, as shown by the evidence or the record[.] Commonwealth v. Norton, 144 A.3d 139, 143 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted).

Rather, discretion is abused when the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, as shown by the evidence or the record[.] Commonwealth v. Norton, 144 A.3d 139, 143 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted).

"The grant or denial of a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v. Norton, 144 A.3d 139, 143 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citation omitted). The denial of a continuance is subject to harmless error analysis.

When deciding a motion for a continuance to secure a witness, the trial court is guided by the following factors: "(1) the necessity of the witness to strengthen the [defendant's] case; (2) the essentiality of the witness to the [defendant's defense]; (3) the diligence exercised to procure the witness' presence at trial; (4) the facts to which the witness could testify; and (5) the likelihood that the witness could be produced [at court if a continuance were granted]." Commonwealth v. Norton, 144 A.3d 139, 143-44 (Pa. Super. 2016)(citation omitted).

Again, the standard is abuse of discretion and judges are given considerable latitude. Commonwealth v. Norton, 144 A.3d 139, 143 (Pa. Super. 2016). A continuance motion requires more than counsel's bald assertion that additional time is required to prepare.

Thus, we agree with the Commonwealth that this matter is properly before us. See Pa.R.A.P. 311; Commonwealth v. Norton, 144 A.3d 139, 141 n.1 (Pa.Super. 2016) (explaining that Commonwealth may properly appeal order denying its motion for continuance where it includes Rule 311 certification).

prejudice, bias, or ill-will, as shown by the evidence or the record[.] Commonwealth v. Norton, 144 A.3d 139, 143 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citation omitted).