Does the trial court erred by discussing some of defendant's complaints about defense counsel and disagreements with defense counsel in the presence of the prosecutor?

Defendant further asserts the trial court erred by discussing some of defendant's complaints about defense counsel and disagreements with defense counsel in the presence of the prosecutor and by failing to hold a new Marsden hearing. As support for this assertion, defendant observes that Marsden motions must be heard outside the presence of the prosecutor because defense strategy or evidence may be discussed. (People v. Dennis (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 863, 871.) We reject this assertion because defendant's complaints about defense counsel, even if construed as motions to substitute appointed counsel, were made orally in open court and the court properly determined that they were untimely. In other words, the complaints did not require a Marsden hearing. Defendant provides no argument or authority for the proposition that such circumstances required, or could practically have required, the exclusion of the prosecutor.