progress of this proceeding this court has recognized that that right choice of counsel is a fundamental right and therefore the court has to weigh its official an assertion of justice against that defendant's fundamental right in this case before the court could probably probably do that he went ahead and denied mr sheppard's request for a continuance you know to him to hire a private attorney the court did not do an adequate inquiry before doing that and in fact  explain that he had stressed received ten days before that motion more information from his attorney that from his public defender that i assume caused him to want to hire a private attorney still incarcerated miss sharp and had gone t extra mile and hired mr big to represent him a private attorney that private attorney did not inform mr sheppard and till the night before this motion was made that he would not be able to take his case because he had a conflict of interest the services therefore mr sheppard is not in the situation as most of the defendants are who are the court concludes are trying to do lay the proceedings because mr sheppard had gone above and beyond to show that he wasn't just trying to delay the proceedings but the court still found that despite the fact that segovia n ok much in two thousand and stated that when the trial court when the trial council is not ready and willing the trial court does not abused its discretion in denying the motion but here the trial second two thousand and sixteen so the defendant had an opportunity to secure mr lowe shares services if you would have been able to do so but he did not and the record does not show why he did not when did his counsel inform him that he was wounded and able to represent him due to the conflict when did that occur in relation to the trial took place i'm trying to remember if that was that the where the trial is happening that day and the question is under  but that doesn't mean that mr lotion was begun to be available or that was willing to accept a really good retainer or that he might have also had a conflict we just simply don't know and that's the question of the inquiry is under being  and that was trying to do so whether it was for financial reasons like hoping to retain him hoping that he could get together enough money to retain mr low sure we just don't know and that's cannot find this work an find a violation of the right to counsel of choice when the defendant's choice of counsel might not have been willing or able to to represent the defendant or the fed it might i've been up before mr l services we just don't know on this record and they're attempting to raise this is a matter of seconds on clean air clean air has to be clear r v s from the record and they're citing cases that are not directly on point because the day of trial situation is that if it might have retained an attorney whose crew could show up later that day maybe but we just don't know because they require but here there's plenty of time it's not like he was being forced to trial  and there's no explanation as to that other than perhaps mr lowe sure did not want to ensure an appearance in the case when the judge had said we're going to trial that we can first week of august  make sure you tell mr lowe sure that and if that's the case thank us out of the pope in case where there's a child leaves her and the new council actually did come to court and saw a thirty eight continuance and there was show up and request thirty days here we just have this idea that he is hoping to retain mr lynch or that's that's not a clear obvious violation the right to counsel choice lack of adequate inquiry and her being on and adams and even adam should not be followed if the standard is that the lack of inquiry means that it's it has to be with respect to whether this is a request or an attempt to delay the trial because that's not the standard the standard is if the defendant has secured a new attorney who has made an unconditional entry of the parents and that a surety then warrants to make a continuance request then the judge the court has then palance it but it's not a situation where she is simply identified an attorney but yet has secured the service and we don't even know if you can then that somehow makes it a violation  because of because of lack of adequate inquiries so that's why the adams is not really very persuasive in this sort of situation because i think adams gets the the issue wrong issue necessarily whether to lay the delay that they tend to delay versus the balancing against orderly administration of justice that's when the defendant actually does bring a new attorney in the court has to say no wait a minute but i'm going to deny you you in other words and without that specification i think this fits into the the group of being conclusory and the trial court did only ask one question but that question did was right enough and allowed the defendant an opportunity to defendant to provide them with the inquiry to give them an opportunity to explain and there their motion i think that taylor case sort of is sort of along those lines where it's not required for the judge to go through every single element of pro se motion specifically that person has to be in court that day in fact and cycle again they are dealing with a motion and the court says there is not even an apartment or i represented in the motion that counsel was ready to come into court i think i believe on the people the mr washington represented the defendant that he was not in court on the day they did it and made the motion to continue no that to get mr washington to substitute counsel secondly there is no difference between when the motion is made on the day of counsel or made a week before that child was still going to go court on august first on three felonies with d n a and ballistic evidence was they essentially telling mr shepard that he could not get anybody to represent him he was chilling with the shepards attempts to hire private or drug more to inquire more androgynous envisions a dialogue between the court and the defendant to flesh out those issues ultimately it's a question of possible neglect not a question of whether or not he's woefully failed under the first stric possibly neglected the case and when you have issues of knocked into many cases or not reviewing evidence those kind of issues cannot be fleshed out without a dialogue between the court and the defendant and for that reason has this court reverse