additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

|¶1 concur in the majority’s decision to deny the defendant’s writ application in this case. I write separately, however, to point out that a defendant’s constitutional right to choice of counsel is not absolute. State v. Scott, 04-1312 (La.01/19/06); 921 So.2d 904, 916. The trial court correctly found that the cumulative actions of former Judge Wilford Carter in this matter, such as signing a “trap and trace” warrant leading to the location of defendant, signing a discovery motion, and representing defendant at a sanity hearing, rose to the level of substantial participation in the defendant’s case, and therefore warrants removal as defendant’s attorney. In so ruling, I do not find the trial court abused its discretion to any extent whatsoever.

Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 1623-12; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 16-00332.

I Writ denied.