P.

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that, because his postverdict “statements to the trial court expressed his clear dissatisfaction with trial counsel and clearly indicated he wanted substitute counsel,” the trial court erred in failing to hold a Marsden hearing. Defendant thus urges us to remand the case to the trial court for a Mardsen hearing. We conclude that there was no clear indication that defendant wanted a substitute attorney, and that the trial court therefore was not required to hold a Marsden hearing. Background After the jury returned the verdicts, the following colloquy occurred: “THE COURT: April 4th, 2012, 8:45 in the morning, for sentencing. [¶] We’ll see you back on that date and at that time. “DEFENDANT THOMAS: I just want to say I believe this was a set up. I believe everything was just, um, coached. I believe that, uh, that, um, the decision making was more enforced by leading and pleading than the righteous choice. [¶] And I believe that, uh, you know, I was treated unfairly in that way. And also, uh, manipulated and told one thing and other things happened. And—

2 “THE COURT: Mr. Thomas, I want to say this for the record. Your attorney has done an absolute…