How has the court dealt with a motion to substitute counsel for a defendant in a criminal case?

defendant's motion was directly tied to the delay and disruption that inevitably would have flowed from granting it. The court did not abuse its discretion. (See People v. Turner, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at pp. 915-916, 918-919 [court's denial of belated request to discharge counsel proper because the request was unduly disruptive to "witnesses and other participants"]; People v. Lau (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 473, 477-479 [denial of substitution based on disagreement between counsel and client regarding defendant's guilt or innocence, though resulting in a loss of trust on the part of the client and anger on the part of the attorney, was justified by the lateness of the request].)