It is equally well settled, however, that a motion for continuance due to lack of time for adequate preparation is a matter entirely and exclusively within the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be reversed on appeal absent a plain and palpable showing of abuse. Dawkins v. State, 455 So.2d 220 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). The record indicates that in this case, the appellant's trial attorney had over two months to prepare for trial. This court has previously held 24 hours' preparation to be sufficient. Gosha v. State, 442 So.2d 138 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). See also, Nance v. State, 416 So.2d 437 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982) (two and one-half weeks' preparation held sufficient); Murphy v. State, 399 So.2d 340 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981), cert. denied, 399 So.2d 347 (Ala. 1981) (two days held sufficient).

Dawkins v. State, 455 So.2d 220, 221 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). In Johnson v. State, 500 So.2d 69 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), we held that two months was adequate time to prepare, and in Gosha v. State, 442 So.2d 138 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), we held 24 hours' preparation to be sufficient." Reynolds v. State, 539 So.2d 428, 429 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988)

We have previously held that, under the particular circumstances presented, the denial of a motion for a continuance where defense counsel has had only 24 hours to prepare for trial is not an abuse of discretion. See Spellman v. State, 469 So.2d 695, 698 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985) (denial not error where counsel had only approximately 24 hours to prepare for juvenile transfer hearing where the court had advised counsel of the evidence against the juvenile, what witnesses would be presented, and that "there would be no further inquiry into the facts . . . [and] thus no specific preparation was necessary on this issue"); Gosha v. State, 442 So.2d 138, 141 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983) (denial not error where counsel had less than 24 hours to prepare for prosecution for trafficking in cocaine where defendant discharged retained counsel 12 days before scheduled trial after having been admonished that trial judge would probably not continue case on basis of discharge of counsel and defendant's attitude indicated "that he did not care to retain an attorney, even though he was financially able to do so," and where trial court ordered previously retained attorney to be present at trial to assist the defendant if requested). "The decision to grant or deny any continuance rests within the discretion of the trial judge.

Although the trial judge's comments may have given improper and prejudicial inferences to the jury, the trial judge sufficiently cured any error by his subsequent instructions and explanations to the jury. See Gosha v. State, 442 So.2d 138, 143 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). V

However, the appellant's mother did appear to testify for the defense. The action of a trial court in refusing to grant a motion for a continuance should not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. Gosha v. State, 442 So.2d 138, 141 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). Absent a clear showing that the trial court has abused its discretion, its refusal will not be reversed on appeal. Owens v. State, 460 So.2d 305 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984).

A motion for continuance due to lack of time for adequate preparation is a matter entirely and exclusively within the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be reversed on appeal absent a plain and palpable showing of abuse. Dawkins v. State, 455 So.2d 220, 221 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). In Johnson v. State, 500 So.2d 69 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), we held that two months was adequate time to prepare, and in Gosha v. State, 442 So.2d 138 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), we held 24 hours' preparation to be sufficient. We find the facts in the instant case analogous to those in Richardson v. State, 476 So.2d 1247 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), wherein we held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a continuance on the scheduled day of trial and proceeding to trial with appointed counsel rather than counsel whom defendant sought to substitute.

Where a defendant has been given a reasonable amount of time to hire an attorney, but fails to do so, the trial court will not be put in error for refusing to grant him a continuance unless the defendant's failure to obtain counsel was justified. Gosha v. State, 442 So.2d 138 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); Whitehead v. State, 409 So.2d 894 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981); Pettiford v. State, 8 Md. App. 560, 261 A.2d 216 (1970); People v. Augustine, 265 Cal.App.2d 317, 71 Cal.Rptr. 384 (1968); People v. Byoune, 65 Cal.2d 345, 54 Cal.Rptr. 749, 420 P.2d 221 (1966); 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 502 (1961). In the present case, the appellant offered no justification for his delay in hiring an attorney except for his own neglect.

As this court has repeatedly stated, it is a "well established rule that the action of a trial court in refusing to grant a motion for a continuance should not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of its discretion". Gosha v. State, 442 So.2d 138, 141 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). In the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion by the trial court, this court will not disturb the trial court's ruling.