In Gonzales v. State, 304 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), the Court of Criminal Appeals considered a trial court's denial of a continuance on the first day of trial to secure additional time for an expert to review the victim's medical records. See id. at 842. The issue before the Court was whether the trial court had impermissibly denied the defendant an evidentiary hearing on his motion for new trial to establish how he was harmed by the denial of the continuance. However, the Court observed that the defendant "must preliminarily demonstrate that the trial court erred to deny the pretrial continuance in the first place." Id. at 843. Thus, the Court determined the issue by concluding that the trial court had not erred in the first instance by denying the continuance. Id. at 844. The Court held: "Here, the appellant made no attempt in his pretrial motion for continuance to explain why he could not have requested expert medical assistance sooner than the first day of trial. We are unable to say that the trial court would have abused its discretion to require the motion for continuance to contain an allegation of diligence in seeking expert assistance in a sufficiently timely manner as to avoid the necessity to delay a trial setting. The trial judge could reasonably have rejected the appellant's motion for continuance because it failed to state either the diligence the appellant exercised in trying to obtain expert assistance sooner or, alternatively, how circumstances conspired to prevent him from realizing any earlier that he required such assistance." Id. at 844.