“A trial court's decision regarding substitution of counsel will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” People v. Traylor, 245 Mich.App. 460, 462; 628 N.W.2d 120 (2001). An abuse of discretion occurs “when the court chooses an outcome that falls outside the range of principled outcomes.”

An indigent defendant is guaranteed the right to assistance of counsel, but this right does not entitle a defendant to choose any attorney by merely "'requesting that the attorney originally appointed be replaced."' People v. Traylor, 245 Mich. App 460, 462; 628 NW2d 120, lv den 465 Mich. 914 (2001), quoting Mack,190 Mich. App at 14.

Defendant has also failed to adequately demonstrate a reason for the alleged underrepresentation beyond forces outside the criminal justice system. People v Traylor, 245 Mich App 460, 464; 628 NW2d 120 (2001). Consequently, defendant has failed to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement.

Such an allegation is not good cause to appoint substitute counsel. See People v. Traylor, 245 Mich.App. 460, 463; 628 N.W.2d 120 (2001).Sueing, 2017 WL 1034423, at *7.

A mere allegation that a criminal defendant lacks confidence in his trial attorney does not constitute good cause to substitute counsel. People v Traylor, 245 Mich App 460, 463; 628 NW2d 120 (2001). If a defendant contends that his assigned counsel is not adequate or diligent, or is disinterested, the trial court should hear the defendant's claim, and if there is a factual dispute, take testimony and make findings and conclusions on the record.

Defendant must provide a factual basis to sustain his position. People v Traylor, 245 Mich App 460, 464; 628 NW2d 120 (2001) (citation omitted). Consequently, defendant has not established that defense counsel was ineffective in this regard.

On a review of the record for plain error, defendant has failed to show good cause to justify appointment of substitute counsel.FN2See People v. Traylor, 245 Mich. App. 460, 462; 628 N.W.2d 120 (2001).FN2.

Good cause exists where a legitimate difference of opinion develops between a defendant and his appointed counsel with regard to a fundamental trial tactic." [People v. Traylor, 245 Mich App 460, 462; 628 NW2d 120 (2001), quoting People v. Mack, 190 Mich App 7, 14; 475 NW2d 830 (1991).]There is no indication that defendant had good cause to justify substitution of counsel, and there is no showing that counsel did not zealously advocate on his behalf.

Moreover, defendant's loss of confidence in his attorney because of perceived inattentiveness is not good cause to substitute counsel. People v. Traylor, 245 Mich App 460, 463; 628 NW2d 120 (2001). The record further reflects that defendant waited until the day of trial to seek to replace his defense attorney or represent himself.

A defendant "may not leave it to this Court to search for a factual basis to sustain or reject his position." People v Traylor, 245 Mich.App. 460, 464; 628 N.W.2d 120 (2001) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Given defendant's failure to establish the factual predicate for his argument that the order to remit prisoner funds to pay restitution amounts to cruel or unusual punishment, we need not consider that claim.