☢ test - Í

representing himself unless he hired new counsel.” Nunnally v. State, 267 Ga.App. 247, 599 S.E.2d 240 (May 5, 2004). Cocaine trafficking and related convictions affirmed. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that defendant had not been diligent in seeking to hire counsel and had thus waived the right to counsel, where evidence showed that defendant had sought to retain two attorneys in Savannah, but none in Millen, where the case was pending; and, though he claimed to be unable to afford the fees charged by the two Savannah attorneys, did not explain why he failed to accept one’s offer of a payment plan. Lawal v. State 264 Ga.App. 49, 589 S.E.2d 861 (November 10, 2003). Defendant’s pro se conviction for theft reversed, as the record fails to show a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel or any inquiry by the court into defendant’s waiver. Waiver forms in the record speak to the “valuable right” to counsel and possibility of waiver if defendant doesn’t promptly seek counsel, but nothing addresses the specific risks of proceeding pro se discussed in cases above. See Middleton (March 29, 2002), Tucci (May 21, 2002), below; see also Bounds v. State, 264 Ga.App. 584, 591 S.E.2d 472 (December 5, 2003) (although defendant acknowledged he wouldn’t qualify for appointed counsel, case remanded to consider on record voluntariness of waiver where court’s colloquy failed to address any of the elements found in McCants v. State , 255 Ga.App. 133, 564 S.E.2d 532 (April 18, 2002), and similar cases). Merritt v. State, 261 Ga.App. 597, 583 S.E.2d 283 (June 11, 2003). Trial court summoned missing juror to “show cause” hearing to consider holding him in contempt. The juror appeared pro se; the court never discussed counsel, appointed or retained, with the juror. Midway through the hearing, the juror “asked the court what type of trial this was and whether he should have an attorney.” The court told him he could have an attorney and that he faced possible incarceration, with or without an attorney, but went over none of the warnings discussed in Humphries . Held, juror’s finding of contempt and incarceration reversed; juror faced a criminal penalty in a criminal contempt proceeding, and had the same right to counsel as any other criminal defendant. Nunnally v. State, 261 Ga.App. 198, 582 S.E.2d 173 (May 9, 2003). “When a non-indigent defendant appears for trial without retained counsel, the trial judge has a duty to delay the proceedings long enough to ascertain whether the defendant acted with reasonable diligence in attempting to obtain an attorney and whether the absence of an attorney is attributable to reasons beyond the defendant’s control.” Failure to make this inquiry on the record necessitates remand for such hearing. Manning v. State, 260 Ga.App. 171, 581 S.E.2d 290 (March 11, 2003). Burglary and related convictions reversed. Record fails to support trial court’s finding of knowing and intelligent waiver of right to counsel. “The trial court did not discuss the individual factors with Manning, but simply warned him it was ‘an unwise decision’ and ‘extremely ill-advised.’ The court also advised him that he would be handicapped in his lack of knowledge of the rules of evidence, legal procedure and the existence of potential defenses. There is nothing in the record indicating that anyone ever discussed with Manning potential defenses, the possibility of any lesser included offenses, any mitigating circumstances, or the range of allowable punishments, especially in light of the state’s intention to introduce evidence in aggravation of punishment. Moreover, although the trial court ascertained that Manning had previously served time in jail, there is nothing in the record to indicate whether he pled guilty or whether he was convicted by a jury. Thus, the prior jail time sheds no light on whether Manning had some familiarity with criminal procedure and trials, although the record showed that he had spent time in the prison library preparing for the trial.” Accord, Banks v. State , 260 Ga.App. 515, 580 S.E.2d 308 (March 25, 2003). Lopez v. State, 259 Ga.App. 720, 578 S.E.2d 304 (February 18, 2003). Record supports trial court’s finding of knowing and intelligent waiver of right to counsel: defendant was made aware of dangers of self-representation; was given opportunities to hire counsel; record contained evidence that defendant was not indigent. Accord, Sims v. State , 265 Ga.App. 476, 594 S.E.2d 693 (February 6, 2004) (Court appointed public defender although defendant refused to apply for counsel; defendant refused to cooperate with defender. “‘[A] defendant is not free … to play one right [to self- representation] against another [to appointed counsel] with the hope of creating error. Neither may a defendant who has knowingly waived counsel then complain of a lack of counsel when he determines that the judge’s warnings were valid. Under such circumstances, the defendant’s problems are of his own making, and he is bound by his poor choices,’” quoting Reviere v. State , 231 Ga.App. 329, 331, 498 S.E.2d 332 (1998). “‘Intelligent waiver and foolishness are not mutually exclusive. The [defendant]’s constitutional right to adequate counsel was satisfied in this case but he threw it away. He did so voluntarily and after having been urged not to,’” quoring Mock v. State , 163 Ga.App. 320, 321, 293 S.E.2d 525 (1982)).