Is a defendant's right to the assistance of counsel impaired when he removed his appointed trial attorney?

impaired defendant's right to the assistance of counsel. (People v. Vines, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 878.) Defendant has not identified any way in which trial counsel's representation of defendant was deficient. In fact, defendant effectively concedes this issue; he argues only that "[i]t is difficult to say what [trial] counsel might have done differently if he and [defendant] were able to work together." Because defendant has failed to show any way in which his right to the effective assistance of counsel was substantially impaired, we must conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to remove his appointed trial attorney.