Is a defendant's conflict of interest with the public defender's office sufficient to compel the appointment of substitute counsel?

were sufficient to compel appointment of substitute counsel, defendants effectively would have a veto power over any appointment and by a process of elimination could obtain appointment of their preferred attorneys, which is certainly not the law."' [Citation.]" (People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 857, disapproved on another point in People v. McKinnon (2011) 52 Cal.4th 610, 639; People v. Smith, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 606 ["A defendant may not effectively veto an appointment of counsel by claiming a lack of trust in, or inability to get along with, the appointed attorney."].)

Defendant never provided any explanation as to why there was a conflict of interest with the public defender's office. Defendant appears to have believed that a conflict between him and the public defender's office would entitle him to be represented by "the next person up," and he presumably believed that he would then be represented by an attorney who was more akin to privately retained counsel. As stated in People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 871, "the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution guarantees the right to the assistance of counsel for a defense, but this guarantee 'is subject to an important limitation, however: "[T]he right to counsel of choice does not extend to defendants who require counsel to be appointed for them." [Citation.]' [Citation.]."