What is the test for denying a defendant's untimely request to represent himself at the time of sentencing?

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of defendant's untimely request to represent himself. (See People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 454-455 [a defendant's motion to represent himself that came at the time of sentencing was "manifestly untimely"; People v. Ruiz (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d, 780, 792 [an untimely self-representation request is committed to the trial court's sound discretion].)

The trial court considered the appropriate factors when denying the motion, which included here, "the quality of counsel's representation"; " the reasons for the request"; "the length and stage of the proceedings"; and "the disruption or delay which might reasonably be expected to follow the granting of such a motion." (People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121, 127-128.) The court specifically found defense counsel was competent; the motion was "ma[de] . . . rashly out of disappointment for not getting [defendant's] [motion to substitute new counsel] granted"; and the motion was disruptive to the proceedings, because it was made on the day set for sentencing, although defendant

Page 6