Did the Faretta hearing in this case result in a decision that was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by this honorable court?

QUESTION PRESENTED | | Most federal courts of appeal require that defendants are aware of the “dangers and : disadvantages” of self-representation prior to waiver of their Sixth Amendment right to counsel; : this includes a knowledge of the range of punishment and procedural and evidentiary rules. i In contrast, this Petitioner’s Faretta hearing amounted to hollow formalities, whereby she ; was erroneously told that the maximum punishment was twenty years and that the trial court would provide some leeway. In addition, contrary to this court’s holding in McKaskle v. | Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, emphasizing that “no absolute bar on standby counsel’s participation is appropriate,” the trial court in this case, restricted standby counsel’s solicited participation. a ‘ ' Did the Faretta hearing in this case result in a decision that was contrary to, ot an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by this honorable , court? j | |