What are the implications of a court's decision not to grant a continuance?

Finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a continuance, we also reject defendant's further claims that the court's ruling violated various of his constitutional rights. Assuming without deciding these claims were preserved for appellate review despite defendant's failure to make timely and specific objections on constitutional grounds (People v. Champion (1995) 9 Cal.4th 879, 908, fn. 6, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 547, 891 P.2d 93), our conclusion the trial court acted within its broad discretion in denying a continuance forecloses a constitutional challenge (People v. Jenkins, supra, 22 Cal.4th at pp. 1039-1040, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 997 P.2d 1044).