☢ test - Í

defender without any input from the trial court. On the day of trial, Defendant appeared without an attorney. The trial court questioned neither Defendant’s efforts to hire an attorney nor his indigent status, even after he asked the court for an attorney’s assistance. Instead, the court declared that Defendant was choosing to proceed pro se. Held: Determination of defendant’s “indigent status was made solely by the public defender, without participation by the court…[T]herefore, it appears the trial court improperly ‘delegated…[the] nondelegable duty to inquire about the facts of indigence.’” While a public defender may make the initial inquiry into a defendant’s indigence, “it is the trial court’s responsibility to make a determination of indigence based upon evidence and to establish a record of such finding.” The trial court also has the additional responsibility to inquire into whether a non-indigent defendant “acted with reasonable diligence in obtaining an attorney’s services and whether the absence of an attorney is attributable to reasons beyond the defendant’s control,” as the defendant’s failure to “retain counsel as instructed by the…court, standing alone, is not enough to establish a waiver of right to counsel.” Raines v. State, 242 Ga.App. 727, 531 S.E.2d 158 (March 13, 2000). Conviction for robbery by intimidation reversed. Trial court must make a finding on the record as to Defendant’s indigence before denying Defendant appointed counsel and allowing Defendant to proceed to trial pro se; it cannot merely adopt the findings of the indigent defense office without considering evidence of his financial affairs and special circumstances, such as this Defendant’s glaucoma. Martin v. State, 240 Ga.App. 246, 523 S.E.2d 84 (October 5, 1999). Defendant’s conviction for child molestation reversed; trial court erred in forcing defendant to trial pro se without making proper inquiry on the record as to defendant’s indigence or his efforts to retain counsel. 1. Determination of indigence. “Although the trial court correctly advised Martin of his right to retain counsel and informed Martin that he would not be given an additional continuance, when Martin appeared in court without counsel and indicated that he searched but could not find an attorney he could afford, it was incumbent upon the trial court to determine three issues on the record: (1) whether Martin was eligible to have appointed counsel represent him, and, if not, (2) whether Martin exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to retain trial counsel and (3) whether the absence of trial counsel was attributable to reasons beyond Martin's control. Flanagan [ v. State, 218 Ga.App. 598, 600, 462 S.E.2d 469 (1995)]; see also Lang v. State, 226 Ga.App. 729, 733(7), 487 S.E.2d 485 (1997); compare Eason v. State, 234 Ga.App. 595, 597-598(2), 507 S.E.2d 175 (1998) (trial court ascertained on the record that defendant failed to exercise due diligence to retain counsel and was not prevented from retaining counsel by reasons beyond defendant's control).” “Even if a defendant is determined to be nonindigent, a trial court has a duty to affirmatively exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for nonindigent defendants based on individual circumstances as authorized by Uniform Superior Court Rules 29.4 and 29.5. McQueen v. State, 228 Ga.App. 732, 734(2), 492 S.E.2d 720 (1997).” Instead of determining defendant’s indigence here, trial court “blindly relied on the public defender's finding that Martin was not indigent under their standards.” Court of Appeals’ own review of defendant’s application for appointed counsel concludes with finding “that the trial court erred in failing to appoint Martin an attorney based on his individual circumstances or, alternatively, in failing to grant him more time to obtain a private attorney.” 2. Diligence in obtaining counsel. “Even if the trial court determines that a defendant is not entitled to an appointed attorney, it is incumbent upon the trial court to further determine on the record whether a defendant exercised due diligence in attempting to obtain an attorney and whether a defendant's lack of an attorney is due to reasons beyond his control. It is clear from the record that the trial court did not either inquire as to Martin's diligence or allow Martin to explain his efforts. Not only was a hearing never held on these issues, Martin was not even permitted to explain his inability to hire an attorney.” Evidence on motion for new trial hearing revealed substantial efforts to retain counsel. “The transcript reveals that the trial court failed to exercise its affirmative duty of considering Martin's individual circumstances and determining on the record whether Martin exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to retain trial counsel. Based on this evidence, at the very least, the trial court erred in not allowing Martin additional time to retain his own attorney based on his exercise of diligence.” McQueen v. State, 240 Ga.App. 15, 522 S.E.2d 512 (September 13, 1999). Convictions for selling and possessing cocaine affirmed. Trial court properly determined that defendant was not entitled to appointed counsel. 1. No impropriety in trial court’s determination of indigency. “‘The determination of indigency calls for the exercise of discretion based upon consideration of relevant criteria of indigency.’ Mapp v. State, 199 Ga.App. 47, 48, 403 S.E.2d 833 (1991). Uniform Superior Court Rule 29.2 provides that a judge of the superior court or the court's designee shall determine indigence based upon the defendant's certificate of financial resources, which may include the accused's ‘assets, liabilities, employment, earnings, other income, number and ages of dependents,’ the charges pending and other information the court may require. The purpose of the application is to enable the court to determine the accused's financial ability to employ counsel. Id.; see State v. Hatcher, 264 Ga. 556, 557, 448 S.E.2d 698 (1994). The record shows that McQueen completed a form application for appointed counsel used by the Southern Judicial Circuit's Indigent Defense