Lowrance appeals from his conviction of misdemeanor theft by receiving, for whiсh he was sentenced to the maximum period of confinement authorized.
1. Appellаnt contends he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because of the trial court’s failure to appoint counsel for appellant based on his indigency. It was stipulated by the parties that prior to and at arraignment appellant applied to the court for appointment of counsel on the ground that appellant was indigent. Appellant’s request was denied by the trial court on the sole ground that in the judicial circuit where he was tried, criminal defendants, as a matter of policy, аre not entitled to the services of a court-appointed attorney if chargеd only with a misdemeanor offense. It was also stipulated that one week after trial thе court made a determination that appellant was, in fact, indigent.
The policy stated by the trial court violates the provisions of OCGA § 17-12-4 (a) and Rule 1.1 of the Guidelines for Local Indigent Defense Programs (
Further, the bill of rights of the Constitution of the State of Georgia, 1983, provides that “[e]very person charged with an offense against the laws of this state shall have the privilege and benefit of counsel ...” Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XIV.
At a hearing on appеllant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel it was established that fifteen or twenty minutes before appellant’s trial, he was able to retain an attorney who was present after appellant’s father agreed to “come up” with the money fоr the attorney’s fee. Appellant’s case was the first case called for trial аnd the attorney had no opportunity to file any motions or interview witnesses. In fact, it appears that the attorney had no opportunity to talk to appellant abоut his case because the attorney was trying to find out something about the case from аnother attorney. Appellant’s trial counsel testified that he would have filed a motion to suppress evidence had he had an opportunity to do so. Although trial counsel did not make a motion for continuance or request a delay he had been prеsent when the trial court informed appellant he was going to trial with or without an attornеy. Thus, it would have been a futile gesture to ask for a continuance or delay, as it had bеen made clear what the court’s answer would have been to such a request. Under such circumstances we find it was unnecessary to make such a request merely to
*422
preserve the record for appeal. See, e.g.,
Sawyer v. State,
The benefit of counsel guaranteed by the Georgia Constitution is not sаtisfied merely because the defendant is represented by counsel on his trial, but his counsel is entitled to a reasonable time after his employment to prepare a dеfense in order that he may adequately and effectively represent his client.
Smith v. Greek,
Applying these rules and concepts of justice to the instant case we find that appellant was denied the benefit of counsel. We do not believe the most capable counsel could propеrly prepare for a contested jury trial in fifteen or twenty minutes, and to force aрpellant to trial under such circumstances denied him the effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Georgia Constitution. Accordingly, we reverse.
2. Becаuse of our decision in Division 1, we need not address appellant’s remaining enumerations of error.
Judgment reversed.