1. Whether the Appellate Court abused its discretion in denying Mr. Anderson's request for the appointment of substitute Counsel since defense Counsel's inaction to withdraw.

2. Whether the Trial court violated Mr. Anderson's right to process where there were insufficient evidence presented at trial to sustain his conviction claims.

A. Insufficient evidence to sustain Conviction for Criminal attempt to Commit theft - (Count 1) value her 7 publication alleged.

ii. Insufficient evidence to sustain Mr. Anderson's Conviction for four counts of Second degree burglary - of building (Counts 2, 3, 7 and 8).

iii. Insufficient evidence presented at trial to sustain Mr. Anderson's Conviction for Criminal attempt to Commit second degree burglary (Count 4).

iv. Insufficient evidence presented at trial to sustain Mr. Anderson's Conviction for theft - of $1,004 or less value (Count 5).

V. All claims raised at trial the people failed to reach their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

IX. Whether the Trial court violated Mr. Anderson's Constitutional right to Counsel & right to fair trial when he was forced to proceed to trial without a Satisfied "the statement - client relationship".

32. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Anderson's request for the appointment of substitute Counsel and defense Counsel's motion to withdraw having been irreparably prejudicial.

Whether the Appellate division erred in its decision to consider Mr. Anderson's fourth Amendment U.S. Constitutional right to be secured in his person from warrant less or unconstitutional Searches and Seizures when Mr. Anderson's Cell detained. The original Warrant had an explicit "no Search" clause Court Ordered to be white phone (was seized) Aspart the phone that the black Truck Tripod phone had been severed several years previously and any evidence connected to it has a out fall to inadmissible fault of Law tainted under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

VI. Whether the Appellate division erred when it quoted Codifying Ansari's story to affirm Mr. Anderson's identity. Specifically stating, 'Ansari testified that Anderson drove there to the Charge site and, after they split up, Anderson came back with the Tools and stuff' and put them in a his truck, while not giving the reasonable doubt caused by Ansari's testimony, that he was re-entering the street that he alone cut the pad locks and that he stole the tools. The appellant division also erred when it failed to consider Ansari's interview deferred over an 18-month window from originally claiming to not even knowing those Andersons.

VIII. Whether double jeopardy therefore applies to Mr. Anderson's case, and whether his sentences are therefore in violation of statute owing due to the peoples failure to reach burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether the trial Court abused its discretion in denying Mr. Anderson's request for the appointment of substitute counsel and defense counsel's motion to withdraw