Under Dean, 163 Wis. 2d 503 (1991), a trial court is only obligated to advise a defendant of the right to counsel. The trial court is not required to conduct a colloquy that includes specific advice to a defendant that the right to appointed counsel is broader than the right to counsel provided by the state public defender and includes the right to counsel appointed by the court and paid for by the county. State v. Drexler, 2003 WI App 169, 266 Wis. 2d 438, 669 N.W.2d 182, 02-1313. No law requires that a motion to withdraw be filed any time an attorney appointed by the public defender terminates the attorney’s postconviction/appellate representation of a defendant. Counsel for the defendant did not render ineffective assistance by closing his file without first obtaining court permission to withdraw or otherwise seeking a contemporaneous judicial determination that his client had knowingly waived either the right to appeal or the right to counsel. State ex rel. Ford v. Holm, 2004 WI App 22, 269 Wis. 2d 810, 676 N.W.2d 500, 02-1828. An attorney may not substitute narrative questioning for the traditional question and answer format unless counsel knows that the client intends to testify falsely. Absent the most extraordinary circumstances, such knowledge must be based on the client’s expressed admission of intent to testify untruthfully. While the defendant’s admission need not be phrased in magic words, it must be unambiguous and directly made to the attorney. State v. McDowell, 2004 WI 70, 272 Wis. 2d 488, 681 N.W.2d 500, 02-1203. When a defendant informs counsel of the intention to testify falsely, the attorney’s first duty shall be to attempt to dissuade the client from the unlawful course of conduct. The attorney should then consider moving to withdraw from the case. If the motion to withdraw is denied and the defendant insists on committing perjury, counsel should proceed with the narrative form of questioning, advising the defendant beforehand of what that entails and informing opposing counsel and the circuit court of the change of questioning style prior to use of the narrative. State v. McDowell, 2004 WI 70, 272 Wis. 2d 488, 681 N.W.2d 500, 02-1203. An alleged violation of the requirements of Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194 (1997), can form the basis of a collateral attack as long as the defendant makes a prima facie showing that the defendant did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel, which shifts the burden to prove that the defendant validly waived the right to counsel to the state. The state may elicit testimony from the defendant at an evidentiary hearing in an attempt to meet its burden and, in turn, the defendant may not raise the 5th amendment privilege against testifying. State v. Ernst, 2005 WI 107, 283 Wis. 2d 300, 699 N.W.2d 92, 03-1728. When a defendant seeks to proceed pro se, the circuit court undertakes a two-part inquiry, ensuring that the defendant: 1) has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to counsel; and 2) is competent to proceed pro se. The record must demonstrate an identifiable problem or disability that may prevent the defendant from making a meaningful defense. The circuit court need not always make an express finding as to which specific problem or disability prevented the defendant from being able to meaningfully represent himself or herself. State v. Marquardt, 2005 WI 157, 286 Wis. 2d 204, 705 N.W.2d 878, 04-0958. A deaf defendant who was shackled during trial and sentencing had the burden to show that the defendant in fact was unable to communicate, not that the defendant theoretically might have had such difficulty. State v. Russ, 2006 WI App 9, 289 Wis. 2d 65, 709 N.W.2d 483, 04-2869. A defendant’s constitutional right to effective representation for the purpose of exercising the right to directly appeal a conviction did not require postconviction counsel to offer the defendant the option of a “partial no-merit” report on any potential issues remaining after the defendant declined for strategic reasons to pursue an issue having arguable merit. The U.S. Constitution requires only that an indigent’s appeal will be resolved in a way that is related to the merit of that appeal. State ex rel. Ford v. Holm, 2006 WI App 176, 296 Wis. 2d 119, 722 N.W.2d 609, 02-1828. While courts sometimes can override a defendant’s choice of counsel when deemed necessary, nothing requires them to do so. Requiring a court to disqualify an attorney because of a conflict of interest would infringe upon the defendant’s right to retain counsel of the defendant’s choice and could leave the accused with the impression that the legal system had conspired against the accused. State v. Demmerly, 2006 WI App 181, 296 Wis. 2d 153, 722 N.W.2d 585, 05-0181. Generally, a defendant who validly waives the right to conflict-free representation also waives the right to claim ineffective assistance of counsel based on the conflict, although there may be instances in which counsel’s performance is deficient and unreasonably so even in light of the waived conflict of interest. State v. Demmerly, 2006 WI App 181, 296 Wis. 2d 153, 722 N.W.2d 585, 05-0181. A lawyer’s failure to investigate is not deficient performance if the lawyer reasonably concludes, based on facts of record, that any investigation would be mere wheel-spinning and fruitless. When there is reason to believe that pursuing certain investigations would be fruitless or even harmful, counsel’s failure to pursue those investigations may not later be challenged as unreasonable. State v. Walker, 2007 WI App 142, 302 Wis. 2d 735, 735 N.W.2d 582, 06-0562. It is recommended, if not required, that circuit courts take certain steps to determine whether a defendant has forfeited the right to counsel: 1) provide explicit warnings that, if the defendant persists in specific conduct, the court will find that the right to counsel has been forfeited; 2) engage in a colloquy indicating that the defendant has been made aware of the difficulties and dangers inherent in self-representation; 3) make a clear ruling when the court deems the right to counsel to have been forfeited; and 4) make factual findings to support the court’s ruling. State v. McMorris, 2007 WI App 231, 306 Wis. 2d 79, 742 N.W.2d 322, 06-0772. But see State v. Suriano, 2017 WI 42, 374 Wis. 2d 683, 893 N.W.2d 543, 15-0959. It would be unreasonable to require a circuit court to engage in a colloquy to ensure that the defendant deliberately relinquished the right to counsel in circumstances where the defendant will verbally insist he or she did not. In cases in which the defendant’s words are inconsistent with the defendant’s conduct, such a colloquy would be farcical. State v. McMorris, 2007 WI App 231, 306 Wis. 2d 79, 742 N.W.2d 322, 06-0772. Although an indigent defendant does not have the right to pick the defendant’s trial lawyer, the defendant is entitled to a lawyer with whom the defendant can communicate. The ability-to-communicate assessment is left to the reasoned discretion of the trial court. The court must make sufficient inquiry to ensure that a defendant is not cemented to a lawyer with whom full and fair communication is impossible; mere conclusions, unless adequately explained, will not fly. State v. Jones, 2007 WI App 248, 306 Wis. 2d 340, 742 N.W.2d 341, 07-0226. There is no 6th amendment effective assistance of counsel right to subpoena police reports and other non-privileged materials prior to a preliminary examination. State v. Schaefer, 2008 WI 25, 308 Wis. 2d 279, 746 N.W.2d 457, 06-1826. Wisconsin affords a convicted person the right to postconviction counsel. It would be absurd to suggest that a person has a right to counsel at trial and a right to counsel on appeal, but no right to the assistance of counsel at a postconviction proceeding in the circuit court, which is often the precursor to and augments the record for an appeal. State v. Peterson, 2008 WI App 140, 314 Wis. 2d 192, 757 N.W.2d 834, 07-1867. A defendant does not have the right to be represented by: 1) an attorney the defendant cannot afford; 2) an attorney who is not willing to represent the defendant; 3) an attorney with a conflict of interest; or 4) an advocate who is not a member of the bar. State v. Peterson, 2008 WI App 140, 314 Wis. 2d 192, 757 N.W.2d 834, 07-1867. The circuit court’s decision to remove counsel of choice is discretionary. The court does not have unfettered freedom to deprive a defendant of retained counsel. Whether removal for conflict was proper rests on whether the court balanced the defendant’s right to be represented by retained counsel against the court’s interest in the appearance of fairness and diffusing what it characterized as a potential conflict. State v. Peterson, 2008 WI App 140, 314 Wis. 2d 192, 757 N.W.2d 834, 07-1867. When making a determination whether to allow the defendant’s counsel of choice to participate, the circuit court must balance the defendant’s right to select counsel against the public’s interest in the prompt and efficient administration of justice. Several factors assist the court in balancing the relevant interests, for example: the length of delay requested; whether competent counsel is presently available and prepared to try the case; whether prior continuances have been requested and received by the defendant; the inconvenience to the parties, witnesses, and the court; and whether the delay seems to be for legitimate reasons or whether its purpose is dilatory. State v. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28, 316 Wis. 2d 414, 766 N.W.2d 206, 07-1982. A trial court has no duty to advise a defendant of the right to self-representation if the defendant has not clearly and unequivocally invoked the right to self-representation. State v. Darby, 2009 WI App 50, 317 Wis. 2d 478, 766 N.W.2d 770, 08-0935. The fact that the government might know an informant hopes to receive a benefit as a result of providing information does not translate into an implicit agreement between the government and the informant if the informant is thereafter placed into an environment where incriminating information can be obtained. If there is hope, and nothing else, then the informant cannot be construed to be a government agent eliciting a statement in violation of the 6th amendment right to counsel. State v. Lewis, 2010 WI App 52, 324 Wis. 2d 536, 781 N.W.2d 730, 09-0429. The police do not have a duty to bar charged defendants’ visits with potential informants; indeed such a requirement would be unfair to prisoners. Also, when a person offers to assist the police, the police need not try to stop the person from providing assistance. As long as the police do nothing to direct or control or involve themselves in the questioning of a person in custody by a private citizen, such questioning does not violate the 5th or 6th amendments. State v. Lewis, 2010 WI App 52, 324 Wis. 2d 536, 781 N.W.2d 730, 09-0429. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194 (1997), is the controlling authority for determining whether a defendant validly waived the right to counsel. However, when the circuit court failed to engage a defendant in the four lines of inquiry as prescribed in Klessig but determined that two of the four lines of inquiry were not satisfied, the circuit court did not commit automatic error requiring a new trial because the defendant could not have validly waived the defendant’s right to counsel. State v. Imani, 2010 WI 66, 326 Wis. 2d 179, 786 N.W.2d 40, 08-1521. But see Imani v. Pollard, 826 F.3d 939 (2016). Nothing bars a defendant from requesting substitution of counsel, nothing bars the public defender from choosing to make substitute counsel available, and nothing bars a court from granting such a request, but a court is not required by this section or by the 6th amendment to the U.S. Constitution to do so solely because a defendant requests it. State v. Jones, 2010 WI 72, 326 Wis. 2d 380, 797 N.W.2d 378, 08-2342. A defendant’s request to withdraw from self-representation and proceed with the assistance of counsel rests in the trial court’s discretion. A request to reinstate the right to counsel is akin to a request for substitution of counsel. A trial court may err by denying a request to revoke pro se status when the denial is merely to punish the defendant or is based on a rigid insistence on expedition in the face of a justifiable request for delay. A trial court does not erroneously exercise its discretion by preventing a defendant from reasserting the right to counsel merely to hinder the progress of the case against him. State v. Rhodes, 2011 WI App 145, 337 Wis. 2d 594, 807 N.W.2d 1, 10-0435. The right to select counsel of one’s choice has been regarded as the root meaning of the constitutional guarantee. Deprivation of the right is complete when the defendant is erroneously prevented from being represented by the lawyer the defendant wants, regardless of the quality of the representation received. To disqualify an attorney as a witness in a case, the state must show that the attorney is a necessary witness. It was an error to disqualify an attorney based solely on the fact that the attorney acted as a translator for his client. State v. Gonzalez-Villarreal, 2012 WI App 110, 344 Wis. 2d 472, 824 N.W.2d 161, 11-1259. In order to establish a 6th amendment violation on the basis of a conflict of interest, a defendant who did not raise an objection at trial must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s counsel had an actual conflict of interest based on the facts of the case. An actual conflict of interest exists when the defendant’s attorney was actively representing a conflicting interest so that the attorney’s performance was adversely affected. Counsel is considered per se ineffective once an actual conflict of interest adversely affecting counsel’s performance has been shown. A defendant need not prove that some kind of specific adverse effect or harm resulted from the conflict. State v. Villarreal, 2013 WI App 33, 346 Wis. 2d 690, 828 N.W.2d 866, 11-0998.