In Ballew v. State, 211 Ga. App. 672, 673 (440 SE2d 76) (1994), as the result of the transfer of defendant's case to a newly-created judicial circuit, the public defender originally appointed to represent the defendant was replaced with court-appointed private counsel. This replacement occurred after the defendant had filed a speedy trial demand, and approximately three weeks before the case was called for trial. The new trial counsel appeared at the call of the case and argued a motion to suppress on behalf of the defendant. The trial judge then informed defense counsel he would take the motion under advisement, stating "we're not going to try your client today or this week either, because of your recent appointment." Ga. App. at 673. Trial counsel did not respond to that statement but, following the expiration of the term of court, he filed a motion on behalf of his client for discharge and acquittal. The trial court denied that motion, based upon counsel's failure to speak when the trial judge announced that the case would not proceed to trial on the date scheduled. The Court reversed, reasoning: Although the trial judge acted out of a concern that new trial counsel may not have had sufficient time to prepare for trial, there is nothing in the record to indicate that defense counsel was not prepared to try the case. Moreover, there is no indication that the recent appointment of new defense counsel was a result of action taken by the defendant or counsel. Rather, it appears that the July 1992 transfer of Union County Superior Court from the Mountain Circuit to the newly created Enotah Circuit resulted in the replacement of the public defender representing Ballew by an appointed attorney under a new system for indigent criminal defense. There is no evidence that Ballew took any action by which he or counsel representing him caused or consented to a delay of the trial to a subsequent term. Although defense counsel said nothing when the trial court announced in his presence that it was continuing the case, we cannot infer under these circumstances that silence was an affirmative action clearly waiving the requirements of OCGA 17-7-170, and a consent to pass the case to a subsequent term. Id. at 673-674.