This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 32,956 4 RUSSELL MITCHELL, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Benjamin Chavez, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Albuquerque, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 12 Vicki W. Zelle, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Appellant 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 KENNEDY, Chief Judge. 172 {1} Russell Mitchell (Defendant) is appealing from a district court judgment 1 affirming his convictions for battery agai nst a household member, assault against a 2 household member, and criminal damage to property, in an on-record appeal from 3 metropolitan court. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has 4 responded with a memorandum in opposition. We affirm. 5 ISSUE A 6 {2} Defendant continues to claim that the trial court erred in denying his motion to 7 grant a continuance. [MIO 8] The granting or denial of a continuance is within the 8 sound discretion of the district court, and the moving party bears the burden of 9 establishing an abuse of discretion. State v. Archuleta , 2012-NMCA-007, ¶ 5, 269 10 P.3d 924. “An abuse of discre tion occurs when a ruling is against logic and is clearly 11 untenable or not justified by reason.” State v. Sarracino , 1998-NMSC-022, ¶ 20, 125 12 N.M. 511, 964 P.2d 72 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 13 {3} “A motion for a continuance serves to raise the question of whether both sides 14 are prepared to proceed . . . and if not, why not.” State v. Salazar , 2007-NMSC-004, 15 ¶ 28, 141 N.M. 148, 152 P.3d 135. 16 There are a number of factors that trial courts should consider in 17 evaluating a motion for continuance, including the length of the 18 requested delay, the likelihood that a delay would accomplish the 19 movant's objectives, the existence of previous continuances in the same 20 matter, the degree of inconvenience to the parties and the court, the 21 legitimacy of the motives in requesting the delay, the fault of the movant 223 in causing a need for the delay, and the prejudice to the movant in 1 denying the motion. 2 State v. Torres , 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 10, 127 N.M. 20, 976 P.2d 20. “If those factors 3 applied logically and in a balanced way support the motion, the motion should be 4 granted.” Salazar , 2007-NMSC-004, ¶ 27. 5 {4} Here, on the first day of trial, the State asked defense counsel if there would be 6 any defense witnesses since no witne ss list had been filed. [MIO 4] See State v. 7 Aragon , 1997-NMCA-087, ¶ 22, 123 N.M. 803, 945 P.2d 1021 (“[A]s a general rule, 8 a motion for a continuance filed at the lastminute is not favored.”). Defense counsel 9 believed that she had filed a witness list, but there is no dispute that the list was not 10 part of the record. [MIO 4] The trial court was informed thatthe victim had been 11 present at every setting and that this had b een extraordinarily stressful to her. [MIO 12 4-5] The trial court noted the delay th at had occurred in this case and denied 13 Defendant’s request for a continuance for the purpose of giving the State time to 14 interview an individual who otherwise woul d not be allowed to testify. [MIO 5] 15 {5} As we observed in our calendar notice, the excluded witness was the only 16 defense witness who would te stify other than Defendant. However, as noted by the 17 district court in its on-record opinion, [RP 143] Defendant did not identify this 18 witness, or make a proffer to the court to establish the anticipated testimony for the 19 record. As such, any prejudice was speculative because we do not know the substance 20 of the excluded testimony. See In re Ernesto M., Jr. , 1996-NMCA-039, ¶ 10, 121 214 N.M. 562, 915 P.2d 318 (stating that a mere assertion of prejudice is not a showing 1 of prejudice). Although Defendant contends that defense counsel was too “flustered” 2 [MIO 16] to place the anticipated testimony into the record, this does not change the 3 fact that we have no record to review and, therefore, we do not have the requisite 4 showing of prejudice. 5 Issue B 6 {6} Defendant continues to arguethat the trial court erre d in allowing the victim to 7 testify about text messages she received from Defendant. [MIO 18] We review the 8 district court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Hughey , 9 2007-NMSC-036, ¶ 9, 142 N.M. 83, 163 P.3d 470. 10 {7} Here, the victim described te xts that Defendant sent to her after the incident in 11 question. [MIO 6-7] Defe ndant argues that the text messages were not authenticated. 12 [MIO 18-19] However, the text messages were never admitted in written form. With 13 respect to the victim’s testimony, whether or not the victim was accurately stating that 14 they came from Defendant was a matter of credibility to be decided by the factfinder. 15 The possibility that someone else could havedrafted the text went to the testimony’s 16 weight, and not its admissibility. To the extent there would need to be any 17 authentication, the victim indicated that she had sufficient knowledge to know that the 18 texts were coming from Defendant. See Rule 11-901(B)(1) NMRA. Finally, we reject 19 Defendant’s claim [MIO 19] that the trial court abused its discretion under Rule 11- 205 403 NMRA. See State v. Montoya , 2005-NMCA-078, ¶ 22, 137 N.M. 713, 114 P.3d 1 393 (stating that an abuse of discretion occurs when the discretionary act is illogical, 2 unreasonable, or contrary to facts and circumstances before the court). 3 {8} For the reasons set forth above, we affirm. 4 {9} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

____________________________________ 6 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge 7

WE CONCUR: 8

___________________________ 9 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 10

___________________________ 11 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 12