What are appellant's claims that the trial court improperly allowed him to replace his retained attorney with a new attorney?

Having found that the trial court made no express declaration of doubt as to appellant's competency, and there is no evidence, let alone substantial evidence, that appellant was incompetent, appellant's other two contentions need not detain us long. First, appellant suggests it was improper for the trial court to allow him to replace his first retained attorney when it had, in appellant's words, "suspended criminal proceedings under section 1368 based upon the trial court's very doubt about the defendant's ability to rationally consult with the same attorney." (Italics added.) While acknowledging the lack of authority directly supporting his argument, appellant analogizes the situation in this case to that of a defendant who seeks self-representation after a doubt has arisen as to the defendant's competency. (See e.g., People v. Robinson (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 606, 616 ["If the court has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's competency to stand trial, that doubt should extend to the defendant's competency to waive counsel and represent himself'].) Because the record here discloses no grounds for doubting appellant's competency, we reject his claim that the court should not have allowed him to retain new counsel.