With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 602 Pa. 126, 977 A.2d 1158 (2009). Our Supreme Court explained: A criminal defendant’s right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment in , 812 A.2d 504, 508 (2002) (concluding that Faretta requires an on-the-record colloquy in satisfaction of Pa.R.Crim.P. 121, which colloquy may be conducted by the court, the prosecutor, or defense counsel.) The right to waive counsel’s assistance and continue pro se is not automatic however. Rather, only timely and clear requests trigger an inquiry into whether the right is being asserted knowingly and voluntarily. See Faretta, 422 U.S. at 836, 95 S.Ct. 2525 (noting that the defendant sought to represent himself by way of a clear and unequivocal declaration asserted weeks before trial). See also Commonwealth v. Grazier, 552 Pa. 9, 713 A.2d 81, 82 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the law is well established that “in

A: holding that a defendant has a right to proceed pro se at trial
B: holding no presumption of acquiescence because defendant was never allowed to proceed pro se
C: holding defendants pro se motion to reduce sentence was not properly before the trial court when defendant was represented by counsel since defendant may not proceed both by counsel and pro se
D: holding that a rule 121 colloquy is required only in response to a timely and unequivocal invocation of the right to proceed pro se
D.