separate trial to find that the request was late because the defendant was following the procedure of the judge lines that set forth the defendant about four months after his arrest and after charges were filed there was a frank discussion following that as to his reasons and then the court said we're not going to deal with this now we'll deal with it the next day the next day was four days later it's important to note that the order injured on that first day to have other counsel which wasn't one below and the judge long said that he needed to take a break because he needn't go over some admonitions with the defendant a break was taken when he came back those admissions were is this still what you want to do the defense ed well can i have another attorney or judge along and said no i'm not going to give you another attorney what's going to be best for me is if you stay with defense counsel it's going to make negotiations easier with the state it's going to make it easier for me and next through counsel with you the judge also expressing concerns about the scope and said that there were limitations and that the defendant wouldn't be allowed to have discovery and this way he could continue to review discovered through counsel he said if this results in a trial and you still want to represent yourself you can do that in this fashion the man who was left was that the relationship between he and his client was so bad that they before they hadn't even been able to agree on clothing that was going to be one trial the defendant said i don't want to lose my attorney i want to go on my own judge who is gave me for one a admonitions he turman that he was entering the his decision knowingly understandingly there was nothing that disqualified him that there had been some mention in the record of him wanting to go pro se previously but presumably was unaware of the exchange between the defendant and judge wines in this way alternately the defendant was to the extent that the defendant's statement that he wanted to have other counsel appointed to him this is something that has been addressed more clearly in the federal courts but it's also been addressed by the fourth district and fisher which  says that when the defendant his looking at his options and says that he would like a different attorney but is willing to go pro se you can't have that that's not equivocation it's simply the wise decision to get counsel if he can but then still an intelligent request for seed on his own if you feels that that's going to be in its best interest and williams didn't have to give a reason according to ames the supreme court's decision from one nine hundred ninety six to the extent that this comes down to a matter of judge who's ruling that was untimely first i would note that they had an issues were given the court was able to make a clear determination that he was capable of representing himself and not disqualified by mental incompetence for that reason clearly you have strange with judge whose shows that he should have been granted his right to proceed pro se she denied the request however because of the set up he would not have been able to properly and formally denied the defendant's request at that time because it was his procedure that it said it is because judge whose did not know the procedure did not have the history with the case forward after the reason i asked the child just asked before we proceed forward i just want to make sure would you like to proceed pro se then the defendant says i want to counsel so people's position that that's not sure that if the defendant decides to go pro se he is prepared with the information that he needs and if he doesn't want to go pro se he's still aware of what's going on out and his upcoming trial the trial judge continued the case for over two months to ensure that the defendant was comfortable with what was going on in this case had plenty of time to prepare with counsel that everything was ok then we get to the trial date june case again that he had any health issues it was simply that he needed to go over his own trial strategy and that he had a a motion that he wanted to file where the continuance is requested for their motions to continue company if he's prepared to proceed that that but he wasn't prepared to proceed that day it appeared to be a delay tactic by judge to use and when that request was denied and the next agrees to keep his counsel by the end of that hearing to move forward with his counsel he's aware that if he wants to go pro se he tend to do that for trial but he is never told if he will be granted more continuances two to prepare a trial defendant was prepared with a motion he argued that motion are now june twenty nine but wasn't prepared for trial and really didn't provide real or substantial reasoning as to why he wasn't prepared for court for his trial that day not generally considered by orders of review to be to constitute waiver it's following along with what the judge says and when the judge denies the rick was there is no reason to keep fighting and when the judge says this is what we're going to do when he said to the defendant at the able to one hearing this is what i propose we do you're going to stay with counsel it's natural for the defendant to follow along he's made his case in the judge's ruling but the judge also set up a procedure that invited this error when he said we're going to go and if we get to the day of trial and you still want to go on then then i will let you go cross eyed and if i know if i allow you to go pro se the language in the able to twenty hearing was if i let you go pro se i will then set up a trial and there will be consensus there was nothing about the procedure that was set up that made the defendant think that he did not have the right to continue to request to go pro se because it was set up in this fashion and because he acquiesced with what the court was ruling the devonian was denied the right suit represent himself and therefore we request that this court reverse and