Does the highest state court's decision conflict with the United States Supreme Court's guarantee to be represented by counsel of one's own choice?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Question One (Page 11): The Petitioner sought to withdraw counsel because of a legitimate conflict in counsel's representation; and then, two ~months later, sought to substitute counsel Lavalle for Counsel of choice—Mr. Villalon. No motion for continuance was ever filed, and Mr. Villalon was ready on the day of trial. The trial court overruled the motion to withdraw because it was Petitioner's second counsel, and denied him motion for substitution because Petitioner sought to delay the court's calendar proceeding. The highest state court agreed and denied Petitioner relief. The United States Supreme Court guarantees a presumption in favor of his right to counsel of choice. Therefore, under the circumstances, does the highest state court's deci-’ sion conflict with the United States Supreme Court's preceding guarantee to be represented by counsel of one's own choice? Question Two:(Page 15): In the Alternative, if this Honorable Court determines that the trial court never ruled on Petitioner's motion for substitution of counsel, than being in the interest of the public, and since a trial court is obligated to inquire into the motion, does a trial court's deliberate silence to Petitioner's motion for substitution of counsel constitute a denial of that motion? Question Three (Page 16): In the interest of the public and applying the previous questions, should a member of the public be entitled for a trial Page ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED court to make sure it addresses every motion, and place on the record its decision, before forcing the member of public to jury trial with counsel who tried to withdraw himself off the case, due to major conflicts between them? Page iii