was a friday that friday before the trial supposed to start on monday well any and then it didn't start on monday and in their third event private council members showed up as a matter of fact nothing said about it after that because of the meeting private  lawyer and he says i'm in the process of hiring private counsel your problem is not only the u s supreme court but even the ones circuit cases are dealing it seems to me with that situation they're not dealing and he told him you didn't you say well this was friday that's going to be monday or you can on friday i told him earlier he would have had more time he told him on it might have waited till monday morning told him and he just didn't know until he was told  knew right one month on monday they knew for sure that that mr blank's tonight show up with new counsel and that trial counsel was was ill so that was one day and then you had the rest of the two weeks  trial counsel the sec i don't know how much communication mr blank's had from the jail to the public defender's office to say please tell mr waiting on that i no longer want to services and i want him to ask for somebody from the office to go and ask a ten year old so that we can sort this out when the trial is essentially being trailed prop probably day to day and the trial court has indicated that no there's no way i'm going to get a new counsel you know that that that the trucker really did say that  the trial court said if you come with new counsel we'll take it up then if he shows up monday morning ready for trial go right but he didn't say i'm not going to allow you to taint counsel he just said we're going to we're not i'm not going to grant a continuance basically i'm not going to extend it short monday morning we'll take it from there and even that without in court i think is reason enough to do well perhaps but what's on this record that indicated he could for counsel i mean at the end of the day isn't unless he shows up here monday morning well the right there actually shows that they his girlfriend and others went out to raise money and then they couldn't raise enough well that that that record was developed in the dead in the district court and i only going to talk about events that occurred prior to that friday when when mr blanks requested your counsel are going to exclude all other evidence and then the district court ended up relying on evidence about what happened the days following about what happened after that friday and then after the court turn around and rely on information saying well over the next couple weeks nothing happened the point of the inquiry is that on that friday when he was denied his request for counsel good morning your enemy flees the court i'm kevin the un a deputy attorney general for the state of california representing responded this is a case under the a p a this court has said that in order to prevail under the a opportunity to obtain counsel of his choice and while i would say that we don't dispute that there is a qualified right to counsel of choice we would say that nothing happened in this case that denied mr bla duty to inquire more when an individual says i want to hire an attorney that nothing in powell says you have to ask more than have you got one yet and that's what happened in this case and the facts in the state court are particularly important as it turned out the state court judge denied mr blank's nothing he never said that there never was an adverse ruling from which mr black's appeals the trial court judge did encourage him to move with some dispatch but that's not here let's assume the facts are somewhat different if on that friday the judge said i'm not going to if you counsel of your choice would be in a different situation yes i believe that we would be in a different situation and we've been a situation that wasn't presented in the state courts actually yes he had said or if mr whately had followed on if there was some real indication that he was going to be able to obtain counsel choice and had said i'll have my counsel here i've or i but in this case what we had was the day before trial and as the court can see it was it was a complex trial that that is there were a number of armed robberies that occurred the day before trial for the very first time the defendant says i want now to replace retain our appointed counsel to retain counsel the trial court looks at that all should see that there is a fair chance a prejudice of the government and also disruption to the trial proceedings which could which is a proper matter for  consideration if there is in fact a request for a continuance but that didn't happen instead what the trial court had was a defendant asking on the eve of trial or simply saying i fired my attorney and as has been noted that's not correct he could not fire attorney his turning could be relieved only but by the court not asking for a substitute appointed counsel which probably would well which we believe would be an even under california law under margin have  the court's requirement to inquire what if there is a possibility for an offense in effect of assistance of counsel but instead he simply saying i want to hire an attorney and the court does have some information in that regard because earlier the coordinators germination that he was indigent and qualified for appointed counsel so in that context there is little likelihood that he's going to be able to or least until he demonstrates it so the trunk court never denied him anything and did not discourage him from seeking counsel and as we now know mr blix was not discouraged from continuing to seek counsel he was his brother was writing a check to fourteen days later to mr brookl reasons and any reason at all i e mailed out of like mr mr whitman's appearance may not of liked his accent any part any conceivable reason and that is a matter that is really in general of no consequence no concern to the state court if he wants another attorney he can try to get them and the state shouldn't be interfering in his efforts there but in this case there's a specific instance that that mitigates that concern as well and that is said to the court and it's my client wants to hire another attorney and we believe implying and is able to hire another attorney he should have that right so what the court also could see is an engaged defense counsel who was concerned with his client's rights and who  trying to hold on to a client for whatever purpose but who is concerned with and can reasonably expect the expected to enforce those rights or seeking for some of the rights for his client that the and that's what makes this that's what makes the record in this case different and i would argue as well that that's what makes the inquiry different when we're talking when we distinguish between the two subordinate rights under the sixth amendment the right to effective assistance of counsel and the right to counsel of  choice california first in marston said if we are seeking to protect the right to effective assistance of counsel we need the trial court to speak directly with the defendant in order to ensure that there is that there isn't a break that sort of break on this court establishes that either it is it's an obvious magic prophylactic role to protect against ineffective assistance of counsel before you find out at the end of trial but if the issue is not effective assistance of counsel and we know now that that is not the issue if the issue is to protect for to protect the right to counsel of choice then i ate court can and should presume that competent counsel as mr mcquade man was in this case will opportunity to obtain counsel from friday to when the trial starts monday morning and i don't think that do we have to look at who had control of that immediately when the answer the question i  based on what happened beyond but he couldn't predict what was going to happen beyond because he could know in front of this man was going to be sick on monday so he couldn't talk about but he's going to be sick on monday so we'll take that into consideration he could only know well this record really shows that he had to have counsel ready to go by monday morning and i don't think that's a fair opportunity to to obtain counsel and bring counsel up to speed so that when the trial begins he has adequate representation but given the fact you've already been found engine and qualifying for public assistance how should why should the trial court presume that he would be able to secure counsel his choice paid coun choice well i don't think the trial court needs to presume that i think the trial court needs to make some inquiry and says what have you done so far who's paying for it what's your current status with mr wait many are appointed counsel are you getting along with him is he go that he's been in prison he's having he's had an opportunity there's nothing instance california state law that says you can't hire counsel of the let us know that you hired counsel the world will be happy to replace your pointed counsel with your counsel but but the point you know on that friday when he says i want to replace my appointed counsel with with retained counsel some inquiry is required to find out why and what's going on and what would what would amount to a fair opportunity