In People v. Lomax (2010) 49 Cal.4th 530, the defendant's appointed counsel requested a trial continuance based on a lack of preparedness. The request for a continuance was not so that he could concentrate on other cases. (Id. at p. 553.) There was nothing to suggest that his representation had been incompetent or ineffective up until that time. (Ibid.) The defendant refused to waive time and invoked his speedy trial rights. (Ibid.) The trial court granted a continuance over the defendant's personal objection, which was upheld on appeal, based on defense counsel's "unequivocal statement" he could not present the case. (Ibid.) On appeal, our Supreme Court held that a defendant's right to a speedy trial could be waived by defense counsel, even over the defendant's objection, so long as defense counsel was acting "'competently in the client's best interest.'" (Lomax, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 553.) The Lomax court noted that this right could not be waived, however, when the client personally objected to the continuance and "'the sole reason for the continuance is defense counsel's obligation to another client. .' ." (Ibid.) The Lomax court upheld the trial court's granting of the continuance over the defendant's objection because defense counsel was not prepared for trial and did not seek a continuance in order to prepare other cases. (Ibid.)