Whether the trial Judge fulfilled his duty of determining whether there was an intelligent and competent waiver of accused's right to assistance of counsel, under the 6th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution

QUESTIONS PRESENTED a In this case, the United States Court of Appeals per curiam affirmed denial of Petitioner’s appeal for habeas corpus relief. Petitioner contends that his request was “clear and unequivocal” invoking this constitutional right to proceed without counsel and self-representation under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. IL Whether the trial Judge fulfilled his duty of determining _ whether there was an intelligent and competent waiver of accused’s right to assistance of counsel, under the 6 and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution. II. Whether Petitioner invoked the constitutional right of self| ; representation under the 6th and 14th Amendments of the United , States Constitution. Ill. Whether the United States Court of Appeals has decided on important Federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this court’s ruling pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) _