Is appellant's contention that he would rather be able to represent himself rather than rely upon an attorney appointed by his appointed attorney without consulting the court?

Citing People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118, 123-124, 84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44, appellant argues the court did not adequately inquire as to appellant's reasons for dissatisfaction

Page 761

Appellant next contends "that his strenuous protestations against continued representation by his appointed attorney, coupled with his insistence that he should be permitted to run his own life, should have alerted the court to the possibility that appellant would have preferred to [74 Cal.App.3d 888] represent himself rather than rely upon an attorney he could not trust. Under these circumstances, the court should have informed appellant that he had the constitutional right to represent himself. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562) (1975)." This contention is likewise without merit.