¶1We affirm the revocation and sentence imposed. The court’s refusal to continue the proceeding until such time as appellant’s attorney could further prepare himself was not demonstrated to be a “gross and flagrant abuse of ... judicial discretion.” Williams v. Gunn, 279 So.2d 69, 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Padgett v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Santa Rosa County, 378 So.2d 58, 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Edwards v. Pratt, 335 So.2d 597 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Nor are we satisfied that the evidence of appellant’s possession of a firearm was insufficient to support the finding of the court.
¶2Appellant’s remedy, if one exists, lies in a collateral action challenging his counsel’s effectiveness at the hearing.
¶3Affirmed.