Whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals erred in its approach to re-appointment of counsel after a valid waiver of counsel, potentially contradicting established Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent

L vJViQ>lne.>r <r\^ViVio^Je^'5 CourV$*A CfbSU^^ ‘lC* 6 oP 0/Oir)5 ‘Vi-VuP^ o<N<a ^ T^&cs/uVucta « -VWsi. V&ViVianiLO'^ uWje.0 cP VvalII. MvitaiW \TN clO ltd \-o b'A VV)it C, A r'lahV to UVar Se^V-jC \Aas O'irid&r&i Nfcid •&rdx'<csviVV^ \ust&\^ vAaW^ ^IckfirQ^^ C.U Uc^n <LourvVu T>dnd: U>rV ocv^AW -a CRo^iC. v|WftW> uW, ** l-U^u* 3^'Phm? TeV-A— '3 4^ FUfr**"«* •*III. Q\ OOvO^d 'O jy^ Whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals approached this matter of first impression, re-appointment of counsel after a valid waiver of counsel, in a manner that was in contradiction with clearly established Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedence. I