In People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, the trial had been continued numerous times and the defendant had made prior assertions and withdrawals of requests for self-representation. On the date trial was scheduled, but shortly before its actual commencement, the defendant made another Faretta motion. He maintained he was not seeking a delay and was ready to proceed to trial. The trial court found " 'that the motion is not timely at this late stage of the game, on the date of trial, to attempt to discharge your attorney by whatever means are available to you. . . .' " ( People v. Horton, supra, at p. 1110.) The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling. (Ibid.) The defendant claimed the trial court had "refused to permit him to testify or present evidence in support of his claim of ineffective representation . . . ." (Id. at pp. 1101-1102.) The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the trial court had considered the defendant's legal malpractice complaint identifying five particular grievances, had received the defendant's declaration setting forth more grievances, had allowed the defendant to be heard further at the hearing, had allowed defense counsel to respond, and then had allowed the defendant to be heard still further. (Id. at pp. 1102-1103.) The defendant claimed that his constitutional rights were violated when the court accepted his counsel's waiver of his presence during a read-back. The Supreme Court stated: "As we previously have observed in rejecting similar guilt phase contentions, a 'defendant is not entitled to be personally present during proceedings which bear no reasonable, substantial relation to his or her opportunity to defend the charges against him, and the burden is on defendant to demonstrate that his absence prejudiced his case or denied him a fair and impartial trial.' The foregoing rule applies to defendants in capital homicide prosecutions as well as to those in noncapital cases. The reading back of testimony ordinarily is not an event that bears a substantial relation to the defendant's opportunity to defend , and nothing in the present record indicates that defendant's personal presence would have assisted the defense in any way." (People v. Horton, supra, 11 Cal.4th at pp. 1120-1121.)