I. IS THE RIGHT TO SELF-REPRESENTATION VIOLATED WHEN A DEFENDANT IS NOT AFFORDED VOIR DIRE UNDER THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN FARETTA V. CALIFORNIA TO DETERMINE IF THE PETITIONER'S WAIVER IS KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY; WHERE DEFENDANT MADE THE UNEQUIVICAL REQUEST, BUT THE TRIAL COURT RULED IT WAS UNTIMELY?

II. DID THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN ITS FAILURE TO APPLY THIS COURT'S HOLDING IN FARETTA V. CALIFORNIA WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ON THE MERITS OF PETITIONER'S SIXTH AMENDEMENT CLAIM THAT HE WAS DENIED TO CONDUCT HIS OWN DEFENSE, AND REPRESENT HIMSELF DURING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND TRIAL?

Is the right to self-representation violated when a defendant is not afforded voir dire under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Faretta to determine if the petitioner's waiver is knowing, intelligent and voluntary; where defendant made the unequivocal request, but the trial court ruled it was untimely?