The Court of Appeal found that the trial court violated appellant’s right to counsel when it denied her requests to substitute her newly retained attorney on the first day of trial and for a continuance to allow him to prepare. In reaching this decision, the Court noted that there was an absence of evidence to support the proposed continuance would significantly inconvenience the court or parties or that appellant’s request was the result of “gamesmanship.” To the contrary, the Court explained that the record showed appellant’s request to substitute counsel was based on a longstanding and genuine desire to replace her appointed attorney, and that her family was unable to secure sufficient funding until just before the date set for trial.
^