to avoid Counsel did not "establish[ ] that a complete breakdown of communication existed." See In re S.W., 2007 UT App 50, para. 3, 2007 WL 474369 (mem.) (per curiam) (affirming the juvenile court's denial of a father's motion for substitute counsel and rejecting the father's argument that there was a complete breakdown in communication between him and his appointed counsel because any such breakdown was "a result of his own voluntary decision"); see also Gardner v. Holden, 888 P.2d 608, 621-22 (Utah 1994) (concluding that an "acrimonious relationship" between the defendant and his appointed counsel was insufficient to substantiate the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel absent any evidence that the acrimony affected counsel's performance); Scales, 946 P.2d at 383 (<HOLDING>). Despite Mother's avoidance of Counsel, she
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to substitute counsel when reasons for defendants dissatisfaction with his attorney were made known to court through a letter and orally at sentencing holding that in determining whether there exists a valid waiver of the right to counsel in the criminal setting the court may consider a defendants lack of good faith in working with appointed counsel including an unreasonable refusal to cooperate with counsel or an unreasonable request for substitution of appointed counsel and the timeliness of defendants request for new counsel particularly when a defendant makes an untimely request for new counsel  under circumstances which are likely to result in a continuance holding that the defendant had no legitimate basis to justify his refusal to cooperate with his appointed attorney and therefore did not demonstrate good cause for the court to appoint substitute counsel holding that a defendant must demonstrate that the governments intrusion upon his relationship with his attorney created a possibility of either injury to his defense or benefit to the government in order to establish a violation of the right to counsel holding that the defendants prior conviction was not obtained in violation of his right to counsel because he had the opportunity for appointed counsel at public expense