Dist. Ct. did not err in joining defendant’s marijuana and cocaine trafficking cases in same trial, even though defendant argued that said charges were not of similar character because they concerned different types of drugs and involved different time frames. Ct. found that said offenses were properly joined since both sets of crimes concerned drug dealing and constituted similar class of offense. Moreover, defendant was not entitled to severance of charges since defendant provided only general assertion that his trial strategy might have been different had said charges been tried separately. Also, record contained strong evidence of defendant’s guilt as to both sets of offenses given defendant’s confession and his recorded conversations regarding drug deals. Additionally, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to call witness, who had previously indicated that he would take 5th Amendment if forced to take witness stand, where decision not to call said witness was product of trial strategy that effectively precluded prosecutor from introducing statements from said witness that implicated defendant in charged offenses.