Defendant Johnson appeals his conviction of the offenses of rape and kidnapping. Held:
1. The evidence construed in the light most favorable to the verdict shows that the victim was walking home from a friend’s house at approximately 2:30 a.m. when the defendant sneaked up behind her, grabbed her, and pulled her over to the grounds of a nearby school. At the school grounds, defendant threw the victim down, tore off her clothes, and forcibly had sexual intercourse with the victim. This evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of rape and kidnapping.
Jackson v. Virginia,
*454 2. Before and at trial, defendant expressed his concern as to whether, in view of the nature of the crimes with which he was charged, he would receive a fair trial in a courtroom where the judge, prosecuting attorney, and defense attorney were all women. Defendant sought the recusal of the trial judge and district attorney, as well as the appointment of male defense counsel.
Defendant enumerates as error the denial of his request that appointed counsel be relieved and other counsel be appointed, and argues that he “was prevented from fully participating in his defense because he was denied Counsel of his preference.” However, defendant has a “right to the effective assistance of counsel, not the right to the assistance of counsel satisfactory to the defendant.”
Bailey v. State,
Defendant also enumerates as error the denial of his request that his case be transferred to the courtroom of a specific male superior court judge. The crux of this issue is whether the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to recuse. “OCGA § 15-1-8 sets forth the particular circumstances in which a judge shall be recused. . . . The grounds for recusal in § 15-1-8 are exclusive and exhaustive, and courts may not add other grounds of disqualification to those stated in the statute.
Daniel v. Yow,
3. Next, defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his 1982 conviction of rape based on a plea of guilty. However, no objection to this evidence was presented at trial. This issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Weaver v. State,
4. Defendant’s remaining enumeration of error contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a continuance in order to permit defendant to adequately prepare for trial. However, our review of the transcript and record fails to reveal anything which could reasonably be construed as a request to the trial court for a continuance. “An issue not raised during the trial in any form calling for a ruling will not be considered by this court.
Ocilla Truck &c. Co. v. Nolan,
Judgment affirmed.
