Whether the Tenth Circuit correctly concluded there was no clearly established Federal law from the Supreme Court holding that the Sixth Amendment is violated when a defendant proceeds pro se with standby counsel at a critical stage

QUESTION PRESENTED ONE: The Constitution requires that "any waiver of the right to counsel be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent." Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, at 87-88 (2004). The question here is whether the : Tenth Circuit correctly concluded there was no clearly established Federal law from the Supreme Court holding that the Sixth Amendment is violated when a defendant proceeds pro se with standby counsel at a critical stage; notwithstanding the Tenth Circuit's failure to address in a dispositive order defendant's concomitant federal constitutional claim that defendant had not made a competent and intelligent decision to waive the right to counsel at such stage. In other words, whether by deletion or alteration of this latter factor in the "any waiver of the right to counsel" test, such, of itself, is "contrary to" established Supreme Court precedent. v x : : 2 yo LM . . , ~ii