self-representation if the record shows that the defendant made a subsequent request for trial counsel’s assistance. In that situation, it is reasonable to infer abandonment. See, e.g., Brooks v. State, No. 07-05-00162-CR, 2006 WL 957795, at *2 (Tex. App.-Amarillo Apr, 13, 2006, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (finding waiver when the defendant "asked that his appointed counsel be allowed to represent him for the remainder of the trial”); Tillman v. State, No. 01-04-00027-CR, 2005 WL 22304, at *2 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 6, 2005, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (finding waiver when, after receiving proper admonishments, the defendant requested that the trial court appoint him different counsel); Carroll v. State, 176 S.W.3d 24 05) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted); United States v.
holding that a defendant proceeding pro se is bound by same rules as party represented by counsel and a court cannot allow pro se litigant lower standard of performance holding that a defendant has a right to proceed pro se at trial holding waiver of counsel involuntary and stating that choice between incompetent or unprepared counsel and appearing pro se is a dilemma of constitutional magnitude and resulting choice to proceed pro se cannot be voluntary in the constitutional sense when such a dilemma exists holding waiver of right to counsel at sentencing not voluntary when trial court tried to dissuade discharge of counsel defendant believed incompetent for the waiver to be voluntary the trial court must inquire into the reasons for the defendants dissatisfaction with his counsel to ensure that the defendant is not exercising a choice between incompetent or unprepared counsel and appearing pro se holding defendants pro se motion to reduce sentence was not properly before the trial court when defendant was represented by counsel since defendant may not proceed both by counsel and pro se