At his stаte rоbbery triаl, Able wаs permitted tо prоceed pro se, but the trial court appointed standby counsel with the agreement of Able to assist him. Before and during the trial, Able frequently changed his mind regarding the standby counsel's role, objecting to counsel's participation on some occasions but agreeing to it on other occasions. The incidents Able complained of occurred outside of the presence of the jury. Following his conviction, Able claimed that standby counsel's conduct deprived him of his right to present his own defense, as guaranteed by Faretta v. California.In reviewing the case a court is most likely to: