Derric Duvall Jones was found guilty by a Fulton County jury of trafficking in cocaine. His amended motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals, asserting three enumerations of error. Finding no error, we affirm. 1. Although Jones failed to enumerate the general grounds and argues them only as part of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we have examined the record and conclude that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Jones guilty under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.
2. Jones asserts that the verdict is void because the order appointing the senior judge who presided over the trial expired while the jury was deliberating.1 He also argues ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to raise an objection to the appointment order, which he raises in the third enumeration of error but argues under the first. Both arguments, however, are foreclosed by our recent decision in Oliver v. State , 273 Ga. App. 754 615 SE2d 846 2005. As in Oliver , Jones failed to raise a timely objection to the expiration of the order. He raised it for the first time in his amended motion for new trial, and “failure to raise this issue prior to the commencement of trial precludes appellate review of this issue.” Citations, punctuation, and footnote omitted. Id. at 756 2. Moreover, a defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must show 1 that his attorney’s representation in specified instances fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and 2 there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the results of the proceeding would have been different. We are not required to address both components of the test if the defendant has made an insufficient showing on one. And we will uphold a trial court’s finding that counsel was effective unless it was clearly erroneous. Citations, punctuation and footnotes omitted. Id. at 756-757 3. Jones “has not shown that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the order appointing Judge Ison because he has failed to show that he was denied a fair trial by virtue of the appointment order. As a result, he has not satisfied the prejudice component of the test.” Citation and footnote omitted. Id. at 757 3.
