Maurice Jones Dorsey appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of armed robbery and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony. Dorsey’s only argument on appeal is that the judge who presided over his case at trial was not authorized to do so. Dorsey contends that the superior court’s procedure for designating a magistrate to sit in for the judge assigned to his case did not comport with the requirements of OCGA § 15-1-9.1 b 2. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude there was no error and affirm. OCGA § 15-1-9.1 b 2 provides:If assistance is needed from a judge from the same county, the chief judge of any court within such county of this state may make a written request for assistance to the chief judge of any other court within such county, a senior judge of the superior court, a retired judge, or a judge emeritus of any court within the county. The request by the chief judge may be made if one of the following circumstances arises:A A judge of the requesting court is disqualified for any cause from presiding in any matter pending before the court;B A judge of the requesting court is unable to preside because of disability, illness, or absence;C A majority of the judges of the requesting court determines that the business of the court requires the temporary assistance of an additional judge or additional judges; orD A majority of the judges of the requesting court determines that the business of the court requires the permanent assistance of an additional judge or additional judges. . . .The record shows that one of the superior court judges requested that the chief judge of the superior court obtain judicial assistance for his division. The chief judge then requested that the chief judge of the magistrate court designate a judge to provide assistance during the period requested. The chief magistrate assigned a magistrate to the division and the chief judge of the superior court assigned that magistrate to a calendar for October 9 through October 25, 2006.
1. Dorsey claims that there is no showing that a majority of the judges determined that there was a need for the assistance of an additional judge as required by OCGA § 15-1-9.1 b 2 C. Dorsey cites to no authority in support of his claim that this rendered the designation null and void, and we find none. Further, Dorsey not only did not make this argument below, defense counsel acknowledged before trial that the order appeared “to be correct in form. . . .” See, e.g., Rivers v. State , 270 Ga. App. 633, 635 607 SE2d 144 2004.
