Does a defendant have a right to replace his privately retained counsel at any time during trial court proceedings?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1) Does a Defendant have a right to replace his privately retained choice of counsel at anytime during the trial court proceeding even up to and at the actual point in time of the actual sentencing phase??? Even, Where there would not be any ‘disruption of the orderly processes of justice'; where there is no jury waiting in the wings and where there are no witnesses that would have to be ordered back??? (See, People v. Ortiz (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 975, 982-983 at p. 988; People vs. Munoz (4-17-2006) 138 CA 4" 860; People vs. Hernandez (5-5-2006) 139 CA 4" 101, 109; U.S. vs. Gonzalez-Lopez (6-26-2006) 548 US 140; Gall vs. US (2007) 522 US 38; Chapman vs. California (1967) 386 US 18, 23; Cuyler vs. Sullivan (1980) 466 US 335; People vs. Gzikowski (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 580, 586 and Code of Civil Procedure §284 subd. (2)) 2) When a Defendant is denied the right to retain his own choice of counsel, is that denial [equivalent to forcing him into trial] without adequate representation even into the sentencing phase where a significant due process violation has already taken place prior to the actual sentencing proceedings where defendant’s retain counsel had failed to make a timely motion for the defendant to withdrawn the plea that counsel had the defendant enter into for a single count filed beyond the Statute of Limitations? Did this denial significantly prejudice the defendant’s fundamental due process rights? (See, People v. Ortiz (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 975, 982-983 at p. 988; People vs. Munoz (417-2006) 138 CA 4* 860; People vs. Hernandez (5-5-2006) 139 CA 4m 101, 109; United States vs. Gonzalez-Lopez (6-26-2006) 548 US 140; Gall vs. US (2007) 522 US 38; Chapman vs. California (1967) 386 US 18, 23; Cuyler vs. Sullivan (1980) 466 US 335; People vs. Gzikowski (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 580, 586 & CCP §284 subd. (2)) 3) Where the court record is [bJereft of any reasonable basis as to why was the defendant’s verbal Motion to Withdraw his Plea was unreasonable or was even assumed untimely in light of the fact that the trial sentencing court judge would not allow the defendant to replace his privately retained counsel of his choice so that the Motion to Withdraw his Plea could be properly filed and plead in light of his due process violations; Did the court violate the defendant’s fundamental choice to retain another private Counsel? (See, [People vs. Marsden (1970) 2 C. 3d 118; People vs. Griggs (1941) 17 C. 2d 621; People vs. Schwarz (1927) 201 Cal. 309, 314; Carter vs. Mlinois (1946) 329 US 173] Due to Improperly Induced—Coercively Forced Plea through Mis-Advisement caused by the Unusual Extra Judicial Pressure for the plea taken under duress and from under Influence from implicitly & negotiated events by the trial court back on July 15", 2016.) See, Johnson vs. Zerbst (1938) 304 US 458 at p. 464; People v. Ortiz (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 975, 982-983 at p. 988; People vs. Munoz (4-17-2006) 138 CA 4” 860; People vs. Hernandez (5-5-2006) 139 CA 4" 101, 109; United States vs. Gonzalez-Lopez (6-26-2006) 548 US 140; Gall vs. US (2007) 522 US 38; Chapman vs. California (1967) 386 US 18, 23; Cuyler vs. Sullivan (1980) 466 US 335; People vs. Gzikowski (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 580, 586 & CCP §284 subd. (2)) BTheas 4) Did the trial court deny the defendant his State and Federal Constitutional Rights to discharge his private retained counsel of record under the Due Process and Equal Protection under the Color of Law when the defendant asked for a Marsden Hearing as a way to express his desire to do so prior to any sentencing where there would have been No result in 'significant prejudice’ to the defendant and No ‘disruption of the orderly processes of justice’??? (See, People v. Ortiz (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 975, 982-983 at p. 988; People vs. Munoz (4-17-2006) 138 CA 4" 860; People vs. Hernandez (5-52006) 139 CA 4" 101, 109; United States vs. Gonzalez-Lopez (6-26-2006) 548 US 140; Gall vs. US (2007) 522 US 38; Chapman vs. California (1967) 386 US 18, 23; Cuyler