In State v. Thacker, 301 N.C. 348, 271 S.E.2d 252 (1980), the Supreme Court addressed the trial court's duty to appoint substitute counsel upon a defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, explaining: While it is a fundamental principle that an indigent defendant in a serious criminal prosecution must have counsel appointed to represent him, an indigent defendant does not have the right to have counsel of his choice appointed to represent him. This does not mean, however, that a defendant is never entitled to have new or substitute counsel appointed. A trial court is constitutionally required to appoint substitute counsel whenever representation by counsel originally appointed would amount to denial of defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel, that is, when the initial appointment has not afforded defendant his constitutional right to counsel. Id. at 351-52, 271 S.E.2d at 255. The Court in Thacker defined a trial judge's duty to inquire into a defendant's representation as follows: "When faced with a claim of conflict and a request for appointment of substitute counsel, the trial court must satisfy itself only that present counsel is able to render competent assistance and that the nature or degree of the conflict is not such as to render that assistance ineffective." Id. at 353, 271 S.E.2d at 256. The Court explained that the trial judge is required to make the inquiry necessary to satisfy him or herself that "the original counsel is reasonably competent to present defendant's case and the nature of the conflict between defendant and counsel is not such as would render counsel incompetent or ineffective to represent that defendant." Id. at 352, 271 S.E.2d at 255.