Lоnnie Richard Roberts appeals from two convictions, armed robbery and aggravated assault. He enumerates two errors.
l.He allegеs that: "The trial court instructed the defendant,
*396
Lonniе Richard Roberts, in the presence of the jury, of his rights to testify or make an unsworn statement.” Appellant relies upon the case of
Wynn v. State,
"What is рrohibited by the statute is a comment on the failure to testify. The remarks here made by the court to the defendant in the presence of the jury served to invite attention and emphasize his failure to defend himself under oath, and this is precisely what the statute prohibits. However well-intentioned аny of the remarks were to insure that the defendаnt understood his rights, we think it is improper and prejudiciаl to advise the defendant of these rights in the prеsence of the jury, as distinguished from merely instructing the jury of the standards for evaluating an unsworn statement.”
Hоwever, the situation in that case is different from this case. In
Wynn,
the appellant moved for a mistrial which provided the trial judge with an opportunity to correct his error. Here, appellаnt made no objection to the judge’s remarks. Whеre no objection was interposed to thе remark of the judge or no motion for mistrial was made, the objection sought to be made cаnnot be raised for the first time in a motion for new trial. See
Pulliam v. State,
2. The second enumeration of errоr alleges: "The delay of the courts in resolving all issues developed in the jury trial of January 4, 1971, wherеin appellant was found guilty, has fatally prejudiced his rights.”
Appellant was represented by counsel in the trial of the habeas corpus cases and on the appeal. He does nоt argue the second enumeration of error; thus it is considered abandoned. However, from examination of the record we are unablе to find undue delay in the trial of his case.
Judgment affirmed.