As the burden is on the complaining party to show error from the transcript and the record there is no merit in this claim. See Neal v. State, 161 Ga. App. 77 (1) ( 289 S.E.2d 293); Zachary v. State, 245 Ga. 2, 4 ( 262 S.E.2d 779); Young v. State, 144 Ga. App. 712 (1) ( 242 S.E.2d 351); Williams v. State, 144 Ga. App. 42, 43 ( 240 S.E.2d 311). Appellate counsel then concedes that trial counsel is required to make decisions as to what witnesses to call, as well as other strategies and tactical decisions to be the exclusive province of that counsel, after consultation with his client, citing Hawes v. State, 240 Ga. 327, 330 ( 240 S.E.2d 833), and Austin v. Carter, 248 Ga. 775, 779 ( 285 S.E.2d 542). He then argues that the pretrial consultation with the defendant was limited to one 40-minute conversation at the county jail some three days before trial commenced, contending same was tantamount to gross incompetence and certainly ineffective. Again, this information is not borne out by the record before us and even so, the evidence produced in support of the alibi seemingly was the best evidence available with reference thereto and appellate counsel has failed to point out what other evidence of alibi could have been produced to establish same. Again, we find no merit in this contention.

The dearth of evidence to the contrary results in an affirmance of the trial court on this enumeration. Williams v. State, 144 Ga. App. 42 ( 240 S.E.2d 311). 3.

(This was the live line-up which was videotaped.) The denial of appellant's right to counsel is discussed in Division 5 of this opinion, and his presence was not due to an illegal arrest as discussed in Division 4. As he did not raise the issue of the failure to hold a prompt preliminary hearing in the court below, that issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Williams v. State, 144 Ga. App. 42 ( 240 S.E.2d 311) (1977). The line-up was not impermissively suggestive. It consisted of six black males similar in appearance to the appellant and he was permitted to choose his position in the line-up.

No abuse of discretion by the court in dismissing the same based upon the laches of plaintiffs' counsel has been shown. See Smedley v. Williams, 112 Ga. 114 ( 37 S.E. 111); McMullen v. Citizens Bank, 123 Ga. 400 (1) ( 51 S.E. 342); Lenny v. Lenny, 235 Ga. 358 (1) ( 220 S.E.2d 1); Gilland v. Leathers, 141 Ga. App. 680 ( 234 S.E.2d 338); Williams v. State, 144 Ga. App. 42, 43 ( 240 S.E.2d 311). Compare McDougall v. Stoner, 134 Ga. App. 342 ( 214 S.E.2d 384), reversed in Stoner v. McDougall, 235 Ga. 171 ( 219 S.E.2d 138). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the motion for new trial and in refusing to reopen the appeal. Judgment affirmed. Deen, C. J., and Shulman,J., concur.

The record fails to disclose any compliance with this order or any harm to defendant. Burnett v. State, 240 Ga. 681 ( 242 S.E.2d 79); Williams v. State, 144 Ga. App. 42 ( 240 S.E.2d 311). 4. On cross examination defendant was questioned regarding other prescriptions for eskatrol he had written previous to those on which he is charged here.