Because the magistrate deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to represent himself, the superior court should have granted his motion to dismiss the information. During his preliminary hearing, the defendant asked the court to either appoint new counsel or permit him to represent himself. During questioning the defendant made it clear that his preference was to represent himself. The magistrate denied the request because it would disrupt the proceedings and because the defendant had not shown that present counsel was inadequate. At defendant’s insistence the court then held a Marsden hearing, ultimately denying the request to relieve counsel. The Court of Appeal granted the defendant’s petition for writ of mandate, noting that his Faretta request was not equivocal, nor was it untimely. The magistrate’s refusal to allow defendant to represent himself deprived him of a substantial right, and thus the information must be set aside.