In contrast, Hatcher was arraigned with counsel, who filed motions and attended hearings on Hatcher's behalf long before trial. State v. Schwall, 193 Ga. App. 694, 695 ( 388 S.E.2d 705) (1989), also relied on by Hatcher, is likewise distinguishable. Schwall's counsel attended arraignment but only learned of it through his client.
However, appellant stipulated that notice of arraignment had been mailed to him and the bondsman pursuant to USCR 30.1. The trial court found that he did have proper notice, and this is fully supported. Consequently, this case is distinguishable from State v. Schwall, 193 Ga. App. 694 ( 388 S.E.2d 705) (1989), wherein defense counsel was not given proper notice. 2.