24, 2006, the State filed a motion requesting that the defendant be transported to the final pretrial conference scheduled for March 10,2006, “to be present for any discussions on the record regarding the status of counsel and the reason for the delay in bringing him to trial.” In the motion, the State argued, among other things, that, given the complexities of the case, “[t]here [wa]s no possibility that [defendant’s newly appointed counsel] c[ould] be prepared for trial on March 20, 2006.” On March 10,2006, the trial court held a final pretrial conference, at which the defendant, his counsel, and the State were present. At that time, the State “sought a continuance . . . due to delays in preparation (sic) and proceedings caused by the involvement of two con Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (<HOLDING>), appeal denied, 712 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. 2006);
holding that the district courts denial of a motion to continue based on defense counsels scheduling conflict was not arbitrary holding that defense counsels performance was adversely affected by an actual conflict of interest if a specific and seemingly valid or genuine alternative strategy or tactic was available to defense counsel but it was inherently in conflict with his duties to others  holding that delay when defense counsel withdrew because of conflict is excluded from iad time calculation holding that trial court properly excluded doctors testimony that some of plaintiffs symptoms could be associated with alcoholism or alcohol withdrawal when no competent evidence indicated plaintiff was alcoholic or suffered from alcohol withdrawal holding that delay resulting from defense counsels withdrawal based upon a conflict of interest was properly excluded from 180day time period