With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Harries v. Dutton, 594 F.Supp. 949, 961 (M.D.Tenn.1984) (“In the judgment of this Court, the conditions of confinement inflicted on Mr. Harries are so adverse that they have caused him to waive his post-conviction remedies involuntarily.”). Mr. Comer describes the conditions of his confinement in nothing short of Orwellian terms. He tells us that he is in “sensory deprivation,” has no access to legal materials, is permitted nothing in his cell, and must walk continuously for fear of becoming a “veggie.” Mr. Comer’s choice between execution at the State’s hands and remaining in the particular conditions of his confinement may be the type of “Hobson’s choice” that renders his supposed decision to withdraw his appeal involuntary. Cf. Gilbert v. Lockhart, 930 F.2d 1356, 1360 (8th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). The record is incomplete as it bears on Mr.

A: recognizing that providing defendant with hobsons choice between incompetent lawyer or no lawyer violates right to counsel
B: holding that a request for a lawyer requires the police to cease questioning until the accused consults with his or her lawyer unless the defendant initiates further conversation
C: holding that defendant was denied counsel even though his lawyer asked another defendants lawyer to take notes or whatever in the defendants lawyers temporary absence
D: holding waiver of right to counsel at sentencing not voluntary when trial court tried to dissuade discharge of counsel defendant believed incompetent for the waiver to be voluntary the trial court must inquire into the reasons for the defendants dissatisfaction with his counsel to ensure that the defendant is not exercising a choice between incompetent or unprepared counsel and appearing pro se
A.