for the purpose of unnecessary delay, the defendant may be required to proceed to trial without counsel. 772 P.2d at 92. The colloquy between the trial court and the defendant should demonstrate on the ree-ord that defendant has knowingly and intelligently waived the right to an attorney, either expressly or through conduct that amounts to an implied waiver of the right to counsel. Id. at 93. 117 In all of these cases, we have consistently held that a trial court must balance the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice against the demands of fairness, efficiency, and the integrity of the judicial system. A trial court has wide latitude in determining how to strike this balance. United States v. Gongalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 152, 126 S.Ct. 2557, 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (2006) (<HOLDING>). 118 Although the trial court cannot force a
holding that the trial court must balance the right to counsel of choice against the needs of fairness and the demands of its calendar recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel holding that in order for a waiver of counsel to be valid the trial court must ensure that the defendants waiver of his right to counsel is done knowingly and intelligently so that the record establishes that the defendants choice is made with eyes open holding that one of the primary purposes of the fmla is to balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families  holding the trial court violated bradleys right to counsel of choice because none of the conditions identified in wheat as overriding the right to counsel of choice were present