Aрpellant was tried before a jury and convicted of two counts of armed robbery and three counts of aggravated assault. He appeals from thе judgments of conviction and sentences entered on the guilty verdicts.
1. Before the commencement of his trial, appellant expressed to the trial сourt dissatisfaction with his appointed counsel, contending that he had not been afforded effective pretrial representation. Appellant infоrmed the trial court that he wished to have legal representation at his impending trial, but requested that new counsel be appointed. Appellant offered to document his assertions of ineffective pretrial benefit of counsel. In addition, appellant invoked what he asserted to be his state constitutiоnal “right to assist in his defense.”
In response to appellant’s request regarding his legal representation, the trial court did not inform appellant that, at the timе of trial, there was no longer any viable state constitutional right to represent oneself
and
also have the benefit of counsel. See Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XII of thе Georgia Constitution of 1983. Compare Art. I, Sec. I, Par.
*544
IX of the Georgia Constitution of 1976. Consequently, the trial court did not require that appellant be put to the choice of representing himself
or
of being represented by counsel. Had appellant been so informed and elected to proceed in his own defense, this would have foreclosed any question about the effectiveness of his representation. A defendant’s “refusal of counsel precludes any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.”
Moore v. State,
It is clear that appellant did not waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See
United States v. Woods,
487 F2d 1218 (5th Cir. 1973). The question is whether appellаnt was in fact afforded that right. “Although the sixth amendment guarantees every defendant the aid of an attorney, that attorney need not be the counsel of the defendant’s choosing. [Cit.]”
Kesler v. State,
As noted above, when appellant raised the issue in the instant case, the trial court “summarily denied the motiоns, making no adequate inquiry into the cause of [appellant’s] dissatisfaction with his counsel . . . .”
Brown v. Craven,
424 F2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1970), cited as authority in
Bailey v. State,
supra at 115. We have reviewed the record as a whole for indications that appellant’s “reasons for a change of counsel were insubstantial.”
United States v. Morrissey,
supra at 670. One of the assertions that appellant attemptеd to raise in the trial court but which was never addressed was that appointed counsel had refused to pursue appellant’s request to challenge thе arrays of the grand and traverse juries. Such a failure may merely evince “a decision of trial tactics in counsel’s hands. [Cits.]”
Spencer v. Hopper,
Appellant also asserted in the trial court that appointed counsel had failed to secure thе presence of defense witnesses. Decisions regarding which, if any, witnesses to call for the defense may evince no more than a counsel’s knowing engаgement in trial tactics. See generally
Jackson v. State,
Since the issue was raised and since we cannot detеrmine from the record that appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to effective benefit of counsel was not violated, we are compelled to hold that the triаl court’s refusal to conduct a hearing was error. Compare
Bailey v.
*546
State,
supra;
Elliott v. State,
2. Appellant also asserts that he was required to wear “prison garb” during his trial. The record refutes this contention.
See Hayslip v. State, 154
Ga. App. 835 (1) (
3. Remaining enumerations of error, not otherwise addressed, are not meritorious. Accordingly, “[t]he judgment will be affirmed with direction that the trial court conduct a hearing to consider “the issue of the effectiveness of appellant’s representation.” Stiggers v. State, supra at 550.
Judgment affirmed with direction.