any specific prejudice to his defense such as surprise or inability to effectively cross-examine the State’s witnesses. See Vasquez v. State, 67 S.W.3d 229, 240 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). To the contrary, Wilson’s trial counsel appeared knowledgeable regarding the facts of the case and about each of the witnesses called to testify. His counsel conducted extensive, very fact specific, cross-examinations and presented several witnesses in his case-in-chief. The bare assertion that counsel did not have adequate time to prepare for trial is not proof of prejudice. Cooks v. State, 844 S.W.2d 697, 725 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). A review of the docket shows defense counsel had ample time to examine and investigate all of the evidence and statements upon which the State relied. Duhamel, 717 S.W.2d at 83 (<HOLDING>). The alleged murder occurred on December 26,
holding that claim of counsels inadequate time to investigate without any showing of harm failed to establish an abuse of discretion holding no abuse of discretion when the moving party failed to make an offer of proof by showing what the witness would testify to if present holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding denial of continuance to be an abuse of discretion holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds