With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". prior counsel for the defendant.” On March 23, 2006, the trial court ruled: “that good cause exists within the meaning of the [IAD], to continue the trial in this case; that the continuance is necessary and reasonable to allow for appropriate pretrial development. The clerk is directed to reschedule this matter for trial in the fall, 2006 timeframe.” Trial was then scheduled for September 25, 2006. The State argues that the 180-day period was tolled from the date the defendant was arraigned, November 7,2005, to the date the defendant was represented 06). The defendant, therefore, was unable to stand trial from the time his former attorneys filed their motions to withdraw to the time new counsel was appointed. See State v. Miller, 691 A.2d 377, 381 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997) (<HOLDING>); see also People v. Stone, 712 N.W.2d 165, 168

A: recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel
B: recognizing a defendants right to dismiss retained counsel in favor of appointed counsel
C: holding that because the stated purpose of the iad is to prevent interference with a prisoners rehabilitative environment there is no reason for the iad to apply to a prisoner until he or she is assigned to the institution where the sentence will be served
D: holding that the 180day statutory limit in the iad is tolled starting from the time that a defendant is not represented by counsel until new counsel is either appointed or retained when the defendant has not waived his right to counsel because during this period a defendant is unable to stand trial in accordance with the iad citation omitted
D.