right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another,” the Supreme Court held “that when a defendant testifies in support of a motion to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, his testimony may not thereafter be admitted against him at trial on the issue of guilt unless he makes no objection.” Id. at 394, 88 S.Ct. 967. In State v. Samuels, 965 S.W.2d 913 (Mo.App. W.D.1998), this court extended the protection of Simmons to a conflict between the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination. In Samu-els, a defendant in a Rule 29.15 proceeding was required to testify about “details of his personal knowledge of the crime in an effort to bear the heavy burden necessary to overcome the presumption t 1 (8th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). In reliance on this authority, we concluded:
holding that defendants exercise of right to testify in own behalf waives his fifth amendment privilege against selfincrimination recognizing that the sixth amendment guarantees a defendant the right to counsel and the right to waive counsel holding that the fourteenth amendment incorporated the sixth amendment right to counsel holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial holding that a defendant who refused to fill out in forma pauperis forms as a condition of demonstrating indigence in connection with tax evasion prosecution could not be forced to choose between his sixth amendment right to counsel and his fifth amendment right against selfincrimination