and it's proof the state relies on people used to go beyond which seems to introduce a one factor rule that if counsel isn't on standby waiting to take over the case that request for a continuance can be denying  he's by case basis based on the facts of the situation some of the factors to consider are rights council diligence inconvenience of other parties the timing when there is an attempt to delay the proceedings counting his own private attorney because he was dissatisfied with what his public defender strategy was for this case and he has the right to choose an attorney as long as he can afford t in this case the trial judge determines that because he cannot make three thousand dollars in bayeux he cannot afford a private attorney but there are no actual inquiries into the situation whether or not his financial situation changed between the time his arrest in september and when the case went to trial in february there was no indication that the court considered whether or not a family member or friend who cannot post bail at the time could withdrawn he never see discussed action for his counsel and then chose to continue working with the public defender and this was the first instance that any kind of problem with his public defender had come to light so that requires furthe when the defendant doesn't want to dress for jury trial and then he says i'm not happy with who it could have been but mr richardson stated when he asked for time to find a private attorney that the day are restricted in this case a jury was waiting to be selected but they have not been selected yet so they could have gone to in other part of the room and served their duty as a jury member and other case and so nothing was compromised in this case at that point this is also not a very old case he was arrested the end of september and of the trial was at the end of february that was five months there are many other cases that can go on for much and also just with a new judge on the case that just turned the trial that day if judge corey had been the judge deciding on his denial of the continuance it would have been a different case because judge grant was not as familiar with the case and the matters behind it and with the defendant himself here with its case and it's a very straightforward case it only took one day for the best argument for inconveniences they were inconvenienced the day before because yes but in this case because it only took the judge that granted the continuance specifically noted how long the case was pending you noted that it was the morning of trial and that no prior question been made he noted that there was no indication defendant would be able to hire private counsel and defendant didn't even seem to be able to leave be able to hire private counsel as defendant actually said he'd be more than happy to represent himself at that time without more time to hire an attorney so the trial just didn't destroy him he had the information they needed in order to find a purpose of the way and this is based on the staple a case in stable the defendant made a request for a continuance to a private counsel on the morning of trial and in that case the but in stable even though the friend actually already consult an attorney she admitted she had hired an attorney and the court consider the fact that the request was made on the morning of trial and also on how long the queues they've been pending unstable on counsel stated that he had some concerns over whether defendant actually wanted to proceed to trial that so if it's a matter of the discretion of the trial judge he could have made another decision discretion in denying a motion for the substitution of counsel in the absence of ready and willing substitute counsel and that case involved her quest for the same reason to change counsel and that it mentions the other factors does not mean it doesn't presumably probably somewhere before the morning of trials of this case is even less if they go beyond another quest earlier than the the later there are just as mean should or should not differentiate it and the people his own counsel announced ready for trial and he didn't dress for trial that in his own counsel questioned whether he wanted to go to trial there's no indication he'd be able to retain private counsel you not talk to any attorney he even said he'd be more than all those things into consideration and also has the ca stated that there was no indication that there is a compatible tranter that he could afford that would agree with his strategy there was the court did not ask whether