change of plea hearing also indicates that the district court advised Miller of his rights, which would have included the right to counsel, and again Miller gave no indication that he had or desired any counsel other than the public defender. These actions clearly indicate a choice by Miller to proceed with appointed counsel. 17 Had Miller informed the district court that he had retained McCullough and desired MeCullough's representation at the change of plea hearing, the district court would have been required to respect Miller's choice of counsel. See Barber, 2009 UT App 91, ¶ 17, 206 P.3d 1223. However, by his actions, Miller informed the district court that he desired to proceed with appointed counsel, a choice that the district court was also required to respect. See id. 1139-50 (<HOLDING>). Miller's choice of the public defender as his
recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel recognizing right to privately retained counsel holding in situation of appointed counsel that if nonfrivolous issues may exist new counsel must be appointed recognizing a defendants right to dismiss retained counsel in favor of appointed counsel recognizing that the statutory right to counsel in parental termination cases requires that the appointed counsel provide effective assistance