contends that the PCRA court’s ruling was correct. It submits that Elliott’s underlying claim of trial court error lacks arguable merit because he has failed to address how the trial court’s denial of a continuance constituted an abuse of discretion. Relying on its argument in the previous issue, the Commonwealth further emphasizes that Elliott has failed to identify any evidence that counsel could have discovered had the case been continued; thus, he cannot demonstrate that the grant of a continuance would have changed the outcome of his trial. We agree. To prevail on the underlying claim of trial court error, Elliott must establish that the trial court’s denial of a continuance amounted to an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Boxley, 596 Pa. 620, 948 A.2d 742, 746 (2008) (<HOLDING>). As noted in the discussion of Issue III,
holding that whether dismissal or transfer is appropriate lies within the sound discretion of the district court holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not bedisturbed absent an abuse of discretion holding that the decision whether to grant reconsideration lies largely within the discretion of the trial court holding denial of continuance to be an abuse of discretion holding a motion to withdraw a guilty plea and grant trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the supreme court will not upset the courts ruling unless there is a sufficient showing of abuse of discretion