Whether the trial Court abused its discretion in denying Mr. Anderson's request for the appointment of substitute counsel and defense counsel's motion to withdraw

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED XZ. Whether the trial Court abused is discretion in denying Mr. Andersons regvest for the appointment of svbéstitute Counse/ And detengse Coungelé hotign to with draw? ID. Whether the frial Cour? viglated Mr. Andersons rrght | to due pretess where there was insuftrcitend evidence presente) at trival +6 sustasn Ais Lonvietians® L.Insutfrerent evidence to sustain 1. Andersons Conviction for eriminal attempt to Commit the ft20,6007 $00, boo (Cavnt 4); valvatien challenged. tt. Insvffreren? evidence te sustarn Mr. Ande rsovs Convictions for four counts bf Second degree burglary of buslding CLovnts 2,3, 7 And 8). Ate. Lasvlliclent evidence presented at trval to sustain Mr. Anderson, Conviction for Criminal Attempt to commsé sétand degree burglary Llount 4) Lv. Insufficient evidence presented at trial to sustain Mr. Andersons bonviction For theft~ $9,000 or Less, . valuation challenged. . Vv. All claims raised that the Feaple farled te reach their burden sf proof beyond a reasonable Aevbt. HD. whether the trial courd violated Mr. Anderson's Constrfutignal right to Counce! and right to a fair impartial jury trial, when he was Ferced to proceed te trial with a lawger who claimed “The atterreyclent relatienshrp has been irreparably broken”? TW, whether the Court of appeals erred in he lding that the Arial Court Aid net abuse its discretivin fn Aenging Mr. Andersons regvest For the appoint ment of substitote Counsel and defense counselé motion ty withAraw? 2 ; QvESTIONCGS) PRESENTED XM Whether the appellate AV S164 erref whensvh Fa 1l0of to consrder Mr. Anderson Fourth Amendment U.S. Constrtutronal rigst #0 be secured in his persan From warrantless or Untenstitutignal Searches and Serzures, When Mr. Andersen was Aétained, the original Warrant had an explicit “Vt Stare, “clause Court Ordér. The White L-phone 6 was seized, A seperate phone than the black phone taken several years previsuslg 11 A Truck Lmpoundment, and ang evidence Connected to s/t was Jawfellyg inadmissible (4 4 Lovrt of Law, tainted under the “fruit ef the POISONOUS tree ” pactrine? WI. luhether the appellate Aiviston erred when tt gvoted Codefendant Ansarsé story 46 affirm Mr. Andersoni identity, Specitigallg stating, “Ansari festifred that Anderson Arove thers +0 The Cargill site and, after they Ssplrt vp; Andersan Came back “with the fools And stuff’ ana put them in his truck while negating the reasenable davbt Caused b4 Ansari's testimeny, that he was responsible for entering the site, that he alene Cut the pad lecks and that he stole the Pools. The appellate Aivisron alse erred when it Failed to consider Ansari’e interviews differed over an (8month window, prrginally claiming to not even knowing a “Chase Andergen”? & MIL. Whether Aovble Jee pardy there fore Applies fe Mr. Anderson's Lase, and whether Ais sentence (8 therefore UNtonstitutional, dve to the Peoples farslure Fo reach Burden of Proof? =