Lawrence

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS OPINION IS DEPUBLISHED UPON GRANTING OF PETITION FOR REVIEW. THE OPINION APPEARS BELOW WITH A GRAY BACKGROUND.] [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 687 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 688 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 689 OPINION Rather than agree to a two-week trial continuance requested by his defense counsel due to a scheduling conflict, Ringo Lawrence, charged with two serious drug offenses, asserted his Sixth Amendment right under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 562 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 ] ( Faretta ) to represent himself. After a half-day of jury selection, Lawrence thought better of his decision and asked that counsel be appointed to represent him at trial. The trial court denied the request and also denied a second request made by Lawrence at the conclusion of jury selection. Did the trial court err in refusing to permit…