Similar to the argument regarding the copies of the checks, appellant fails to establish that there is a reasonable probability that had trial counsel taken the above mentioned actions, that the trial court would have denied (or even reduced) the restitution awarded. As explained elsewhere, sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s order of restitution and the court’s order did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Appellant has not shown how any action his counsel could have taken with respect to incidental expenses would have resulted in a different award. Appellant’s argument that counsel should have requested a continuance to investigate the items on the list, also fails because he has not shown the requisite prejudice. Indeed, the trial court had refused to grant a continuance to obtain the checks. The court also commented that the proceedings had already been delayed for six or seven months suggesting that further delays would not be permitted. Thus, any request for a continuance would have been futile; appellant’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to request it.