to light and be appropriately remedied if the person who is suffering from this inadequacy is not permitted to do so. Simply ignoring a pretrial assertion of ineffectiveness of counsel means that the claim is left to be taken up in post conviction relief proceedings. Graves, 642 So.2d at 144. We do not believe this reasoning extends to a motion to disqualify. Unlike a motion to dismiss counsel, the effectiveness of the defendant’s court-appointed attorney is not at issue, and the attorney has no incentive to refrain from adopting his client's motion if that claim has any merit. If counsel chooses not to adopt the pro se motion, the defendant may opt to represent himself and file the motion to disqualify at that time. See Logan, 846 So.2d at 475. 15 . See Nelson, 274 So.2d at 258-59 (<HOLDING>), approved of in Hardwick v. State, 521 So.2d
holding that when a defendant raises a claim on direct appeal that trial counsel was ineffective defendant bears the burden of assuring record is adequate holding that when a defendant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel the trial judge must conduct an inquiry into the claim holding that a defendant must show actual prejudice to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate