Kavin Rhodes appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Rhodes claims his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because the state trial court denied his three Marsden requests to substitute his court-appointed lawyer for new counsel. See People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118, 84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44 (1970) (<HOLDING>). In denying Rhodes’s three Marsden motions,
recognizing that a california criminal defendant may move to have his courtappointed attorney substituted for different counsel if the appointed attorney is rendering inadequate assistance holding that defendant forfeited his right to counsel by verbally abusing and threatening to harm his attorney threatening to sue his attorney on four different occasions and attempting to persuade his attorney to engage in unethical conduct recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel holding that courts may require one or both parents to pay for a courtappointed attorney for their children holding in situation of appointed counsel that if nonfrivolous issues may exist new counsel must be appointed