How have we determined that there was a conflict in the relationship between defendant and his attorney?

The claims lack merit. We have already rejected defendant's claims under People v. Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118, 84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44. Defendant's claims that counsel was "unprepared" were never substantiated. Defendant's own writings suggest that the claims of unpreparedness were an attempt to inject error into the record. Moreover, although defendant claimed that counsel neglected to interview "hundreds" of witnesses, he failed to identify any such witness or to demonstrate any relevant testimony these unidentified witnesses might offer. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that defendant would have been satisfied with the services of any attorney appointed to represent him.

In this case, any conflict between defendant and his attorney was manufactured by defendant himself. He refused to accept that there were any matters within the province of counsel to decide. He desired to control all trial decisions and to make his attorneys subservient to his whims. He has not shown the impairment of the right to effective assistance of counsel or that any lack of communication was the fault of anyone but himself. As noted before, there is no guarantee of a meaningful relationship between an accused and his counsel. (Morris v. Slappy (1983) 461 U.S. 1, 14, 103 S.Ct. 1610, 1617, 75 L.Ed.2d 610.)