Appellant's fourth and final contention is that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. It is well settled that a prisoner's dissatisfaction with his representation by counsel does not constitute grounds for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus unless counsel's conduct was so prejudicial as to constitute a deprivation of due process. See Commonwealth ex rel. Schenk v. Banmiller, 190 Pa. Super. 467, 154 A.2d 320; Commonwealth ex rel. Fritchmanv. Ceraul, 193 Pa. Super. 7, 163 A.2d 311; Commonwealthex rel. Nowakowski v. Maroney, 194 Pa. Super. 24, 166 A.2d 559. Wherry requested counsel on October 6, 1961, at the time sentence was originally imposed. The sentence was thereupon revoked and competent counsel appointed.