to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest. See Johnson v. State, 928 N.E.2d 893, 897 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010) (stating that an actual conflict of interest is one that requires the defense attorney to advance his own interests to the detriment of his client and “ ‘by its nature, is so threatening [as] to justify a presumption that the adequacy of representation was affected’” (quoting U.S. v. Ziegenhagen, 890 F.2d 937, 939-40 (7th Cir.1989))). Moreover, at the time of the January 20 hearing, Bronaugh’s jury trial was scheduled to begin in one month. Our Supreme Court has stated that a “trial court may refuse a motion for permission to withdraw if the court determines that there will be a resultant delay in the administration of justice.” Moore v. State, 557 N.E.2d 665, 668 (Ind.1990) (<HOLDING>). More significant, however, is that Bro-naugh
holding that a motion to intervene filed ten weeks after the commencement of the action was timely holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on a 3800c motion filed one day late recognizing the late date of a motion to withdraw filed three weeks before trial holding that a motion court is compelled to dismiss late filed claims holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw guilty plea filed three weeks after entering the plea