Opinion
73197.
DECIDED OCTOBER 21, 1986.
Habitual violator. Richmond Superior Court. Before Judge Pierce.
James W. Purcell, for appellant.
Sam B. Sibley, Jr., District Attorney, George N. Guest, Charles R. Sheppard, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of being an habitual violator who was operating a motor vehicle after his driving license had been revoked, without having obtained a valid driver's license after said revocation. In his sole enumeration of error appellant contends the trial court erred by forcing him to wear prison clothing at his trial, thus denying him the presumption of innocence and due process of law.
The record discloses that at the commencement of trial, appellant's counsel stated that appellant was in prison clothing, but pointed out that there was no writing on the clothing to indicate that it was prison clothing. The trial court also stated on the record that there was nothing on the clothing to indicate appellant was a prisoner. The clothing was described as a dark blue "surgical scrub" shirt, dark blue trousers and slip-on tennis shoes. Under such circumstances, there was no error in overruling appellant's objection to being tried in prison clothing. Hayslip v. State, 154 Ga. App. 835 (1) ( 270 S.E.2d 61) (1980); Whittington v. State, 155 Ga. App. 667 (1) ( 272 S.E.2d 532) (1980). See also State v. Pike, 253 Ga. 304, 305-306 ( 320 S.E.2d 355) (1984).
Judgment affirmed. Banke, C. J., and Birdsong, P. J., concur.