A Cherokee County jury found James Talley guilty of one count of aggravated assault, four counts of simple battery, and two counts of terroristic threats arising from acts Talley committed against his former girlfriend and her minor children. He appeals, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and that the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to fire his defense counsel; in admitting similar transaction evidence; in admitting the victim’s prior consistent statement; and in imposing a probationary condition that negates his ability to contact his children. Finding the alleged trial errors to be without merit, we affirm Talley’s conviction. 1. In his first enumeration of error, Talley claims, “The trial court erred when sic refused to permit Mr. Talley to fire his attorney and failed to inquire as to whether he wished to proceed pro se rather than with appointed counsel.” Our review of the record shows no factual basis upon which to conclude the trial court “refused” a pre-trial request by Talley to terminate his attorney’s employment. Instead, upon inquiry prior to trial, Talley stated that he was satisfied with his attorney and wanted to continue with his attorney’s representation. We know of no basis for a sua sponte inquiry by the trial court into whether a defendant may wish to proceed pro se, after that same defendant has just asserted satisfaction with legal representation. Certainly, Talley has not provided us with any precedent in support of such inquiry. Accordingly, this claim is meritless.
2. Next, Talley contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because a his defense attorney failed to call three witnesses to rebut a similar transaction witness’s testimony, and b counsel failed to move to sever offenses. To establish ineffectiveness, an appellant carries the burden to show both that his counsel’s performance was deficient, and that the deficiency prejudiced him; failure to satisfy either prong of this test is fatal to an ineffectiveness claim; moreover, a defendant must overcome the strong presumption that trial counsel’s conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional conduct.1
