However, Willis did not object to the State's evidence of his gang affiliation on this basis at trial; thus, the issue is not preserved for ordinary appellate review. See Patterson v. State, 280 Ga. 132, 135 (2), 625 S.E.2d 395 (2006) (finding a defendant procedurally barred from raising a constitutional claim on appeal, where he did not object on that basis at trial); Tollette, 280 Ga. at 103 (7), 621 S.E.2d 742 (finding a claim that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the defendant's gang affiliation waived and citing Earnest, 262 Ga. at 495 (1), 422 S.E.2d 188 ). In any event, Willis's contention is without merit.

See Ford v. State, 269 Ga. 139, 141 (3) ( 498 SE2d 58) (1998). However, at trial, he raised no objection regarding a claim of "bolstering," and the issue is not preserved for appeal. Patterson v. State, 280 Ga. 132, 134 (2) ( 625 SE2d 395) (2006). 4. The trial court instructed the jury:

See U.A.P. II (A) (1). Because Arrington did not object to the admission of the similar transaction evidence on this ground at trial, this claim is waived. Patterson v. State, 280 Ga. 132, 134 (2) ( 625 SE2d 395) (2006). Even assuming this issue were preserved for appellate review, there is no per se constitutional right to the appointment of two attorneys in a capital case, and Arrington has not shown how he was harmed by being represented by one attorney at the time of his similar transaction hearing.

We conclude, however, that, even if this evidence improperly placed Carson's character into evidence, the error was harmless given the strength of the evidence against Carson.Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.Patterson v. State, 280 Ga. 132, 135 ( 625 SE2d 395) (2006); White v. State, 269 Ga. 74, 75 ( 495 SE2d 278) (1998). SEARS, Chief Justice.