With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 791, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973). Here, the district court did not state the grounds for refusing Wa-terfield’s request for substitute counsel. 7 . The State also cites a Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals case for the proposition that routine post-conviction presentence interviews are not critical stages of proceedings. However, that case was withdrawn and reissued without the holding cited by the State. Compare United States v. Rogers, 899 F.2d 917, 919 n. 7 (10th Cir.1990), with United States v. Rogers, 921 F.2d 975, 978 n. 7 (10th Cir.1990). 8 . Waterfield makes no attempt to explain how the differences of opinion between himself and counsel created a conflict that could not be reconciled. Cf. State v. Scales, 946 P.2d 377, 382-83 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (<HOLDING>). 9 . We stress, however, that "when a

A: holding that even intense animosity between a defendant and appointed counsel did not constitute good cause for substitution of counsel because to result in the denial of a defendants right to counsel such animosity may not be based solely on the defendants illegitimate complaints or subjective perception of events
B: holding that the defendants prior conviction was not obtained in violation of his right to counsel because he had the opportunity for appointed counsel at public expense
C: holding that in determining whether there exists a valid waiver of the right to counsel in the criminal setting the court may consider a defendants lack of good faith in working with appointed counsel including an unreasonable refusal to cooperate with counsel or an unreasonable request for substitution of appointed counsel and the timeliness of defendants request for new counsel particularly when a defendant makes an untimely request for new counsel  under circumstances which are likely to result in a continuance
D: recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel
A.