Does a motion for appointment of counsel need to be considered in pro per or pro per?

In Yarbrough v. Superior Court, supra, 39 Cal.3d 197, the defendant, acting in pro per., moved for appointment of counsel alleging that he was being sued for wrongful death; he was incarcerated, indigent, and uneducated; and he would suffer a default judgment as a result that could be avoided by appointment of counsel. The county contested the motion only insofar as the county might be required to compensate counsel. The court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to conduct further proceedings and consider, at a minimum, the defendant's indigency, the feasibility of a continuance, whether defendant's interests were actually at stake, and whether counsel would be helpful under the circumstances of the case.