dissenting.
I would affirm the denial of Buhl’s habe-as petition. The record demonstrates Buhl did not clearly or unequivocally waive his right to counsel and invoke his right to self-representation. Buhl mooted his self-representation request by accepting the trial court’s hybrid representation proposal, and thereafter waived any right to self-representation by refusing to attend and participate in his trial.
Buhl twice raised the possibility of self-representation. Shortly before trial, Buhl filed a written motion to dismiss his attorney and represent himself, on which the trial court held a hearing. The trial court’s conclusion that Buhl’s request was motivated by his dissatisfaction with his appointed attorney was no more than a confirmation of what Buhl repeatedly told the court, both in the affidavit he filed in support of his motion1 and throughout the hearing. At the hearing, the court confirmed the basis for the motion by asking Buhl, “Essentially, what your [sic] saying is incompetency of counsel, am I right?” Buhl answered, ‘Yes, your Honor.” (Tr. of 1/22/91 hearing at 4.) Buhl’s answer was clear and unequivocal.2 Based on that *808clear answer, and on the court’s ensuing detailed discussion with Buhl, I agree with the New Jersey Appellate court (as did the District Court) that “it became apparent almost at the outset that [Buhl’s] principal complaint pertained to his attorney’s alleged incompetence.” State v. Buhl, 635 A.2d at 570. Buhl continually justified his motion with complaints about how his appointed counsel was handling the case. Buhl never indicated he still would want to represent himself if he were satisfied with counsel.
Having confirmed the basis for Buhl’s motion, the trial court proposed a remedy: a hybrid form of representation in which appointed counsel would continue to represent Buhl, but Buhl would be allowed to make his own motions and to put on record any disagreements with his appointed counsel’s handling of the case. Buhl stated that he understood the proposal, and he immediately consented to it by spending the remainder of the hearing discussing pre-trial issues with the court and his appointed counsel. Buhl’s willing acceptance of the hybrid representation (which the majority characterizes as “submission”) was tantamount to a withdrawal of the self-representation request. See McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 182, 104 S.Ct. 944, 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984) (“Even when he insists that he is not waiving his Faretta rights, a pro se defendant’s solicitation of or acquiescence in certain types of participation by counsel substantially undermines later protestations that counsel interfered unacceptably;” stand-by counsel’s participation did not violate defendant’s right to proceed pro se); Raulerson v. Wainwright, 732 F.2d 803, 809 (11th Cir. 1984) (defendant waived his self-representation when he voluntarily walked out of his Faretta hearing); Brown v. Wainwright, 665 F.2d 607 (5th Cir.1982) (en banc) (defendant waived his self-representation request when, after hearing on pro se motion, he asked counsel to “stay on,” counsel informed court he and defendant resolved their differences, and defendant did not renew self-representation request until after close of evidence); United States v. Bennett, 539 F.2d 45 (10th Cir. 1976) (defendant forfeited right to self-representation by vacillating on representation issue until six days before trial). Buhl’s ability to make and file pro se motions and to make of record any objections and arguments make the situation materially different from that in Faretta, where the defendant was specifically precluded from filing pro se motions and acting as co-counsel along with appointed counsel. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 808, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).
The majority also holds the trial court failed to conduct a proper Faretta inquiry. But in order to invoke his right to self-representation and trigger the need for a full Faretta inquiry, Buhl was required to make a clear and unequivocal request to proceed pro se. Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525 (defendant must “clearly and unequivocally” indicate intention to proceed pro se). Buhl’s request was not clear and unequivocal, because he willingly accepted the hybrid representation proposal (or at the very least, vacillated in his request to proceed pro se). Accordingly, the trial court was not obligated to conduct any further inquiry.
The majority suggests that Buhl’s acceptance of the hybrid representation proposal should not be interpreted as a withdrawal of the self-representation request because Buhl would have “risked sanctions” by doing otherwise. Nowhere does the record indicate the trial court considered or threatened sanctions if Buhl rejected the proposal. Moreover, I see nothing in the record indicating the trial court coerced Buhl into accepting the proposed hybrid representation. At least six times during the hearing, the trial court specifically asked Buhl whether he understood the proposed resolution. Each time, Buhl responded he did. The record portrays a legally sophisticated defendant familiar with and acting to manipulate the process because, as noted by the New *809Jersey appellate court, he faced “overwhelming” evidence against him and a record that “shriek[ed] of [his] guilt.” State v. Buhl, 269 N.J.Super. 344, 635 A.2d 562, 565 (1994).
The circumstances of Buhl’s second request to proceed pro se confirm Buhl suffered no constitutional violation (and distinguish this case from those on which the majority relies). On the day of trial, consistent with the hybrid representation arrangement, Buhl made of record several concerns,3 challenged the indictment on the ground that it had been improperly amended, and stated he was unhappy with his appointed counsel and wished to represent himself at trial.4 The court denied Buhl’s request to proceed pro se. Buhl then made (through appointed counsel) a recusal motion. That motion also was denied. The jury then was impaneled, after which Buhl, pro se, again moved to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds, moved for mistrial on the ground of juror prejudice, and objected to the presence of uniformed correctional officers in the courtroom. The court noted all of Buhl’s objections, but indicated the trial would proceed. At that point Buhl stated he did not wish to be present during the trial. The court advised Buhl of his right to be present for the trial, warned of the implications of Buhl’s refusal to be present, and confirmed that Buhl’s decision was voluntary. Buhl responded, “Any kind of recourse or action I am going to get, it will be on the Appellate level, not from this Court. I don’t see that I should be here for it. I waive my right to be here for it.”
Rather than a mere “assertion of displeasure,” Buhl’s words and actions constituted a waiver. Buhl’s waiver — and the opportunities provided to him to make motions, arguments, and objections of record — compels the conclusion that he was not deprived of his constitutional right to appear pro se. See Raulerson v. Wainwright, 732 F.2d 803, 809 (11th Cir.1984) (self-representation request waived when defendant walked out of courtroom in the midst of a Faretta hearing; “The defendant’s behavior on this occasion convinces us that he was not deprived of his constitutional right to appear pro se.”).
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
. In his affidavit, Buhl “expressed dissatisfaction with his lawyer’s work and claimed the lawyer was incompetent.” State v. Buhl, 269 N.J.Super. 344, 635 A.2d 562, 570 (1994).
. The majority concludes that Buhl's answer was not a sufficient basis for the trial court’s actions, reasoning that “nearly every request to proceed pro se will be based upon a defendant's dissatisfaction with counsel.” I disagree; some requests may be merely attempts to delay trial. I see no reason to question the sufficiency of Buhl's answer.
. For example, Buhl claimed he was never given a warrant and never formally charged. He also discussed witness issues with the court.
. I disagree that Buhl’s second self-representation request was timely. Buhl's morning-of-trial request came after he had already been granted one trial continuance to allow him to continue to prepare for trial. As both the New Jersey Appellate court and the district court concluded, granting Buhl's second request on the morning of trial would have unduly delayed the trial. See Dist. Ct. Op. at 13; State v. Buhl, 635 A.2d at 571-72. That Buhl's last-minute self-representation request came after an earlier request with resulting one-month continuance and permission to file pro se motions, and on the heels of several denied dismissal motions, strongly suggests Buhl’s request was intended merely for delay. Thus, Buhl's situation differs from those in Virgin Islands v. Charles, 72 F.3d 401 (3d Cir.1995) and Virgin Islands v. James, 934 F.2d 468 (3d Cir.1991), in which morning-of-trial pro se requests were allowed. Those cases did not specifically address the timeliness issue, did not appear to have involved trials that had already been continued, and do not reflect determinations by the trial courts that granting the last-minute requests would have substantially delayed the trials. Moreover, there is no basis for the majority's view that Buhl's second request can somehow "relate back” to his first request for purposes of determining timeliness.