WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS OBLIGATED
TO DETERMINE THE MENTAL COMPETENCY OF
A DEFENDANT BEFORE GRANTING HIM THE
RIGHT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AT TRIAL IF IT
HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT HE LACKED A
RATIONAL AND FACTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF
THE PROCEEDINGS; AND IF SUCH DEFENDANT
BE FOUND INCOMPETENT OR BARELY
COMPETENT, THAT IT HAD THE RIGHT TO
DENY THAT DEFENDANT THE RIGHT OF SELF-
REPRESENTATION.

Whether the trial court was obligated to determine the mental competency of a defendant before granting him the right to represent himself at trial if it had reason to believe that he lacked a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings