Following a bench trial in which he represented himself, James Michael Yancey was convicted of loitering or prowling. He appeals, arguing that he is entitled to a new trial because the State has failed to meet its burden of showing that he validly waived his right to counsel or his right to a jury trial. Finding merit to these contentions, we reverse. On appeal, the “heavy” burden is on the State to show that Yancey knowingly and intelligently waived these rights. As we recently stated as to the waiver of the right to counsel: When an accused is placed on trial for any offense, whether felony or misdemeanor, for which he faces imprisonment, the constitutional guarantee of right to counsel attaches. This constitutional right invokes, of itself, the protection of a trial court, in which the accused whose life or liberty is at stakeis without counsel. This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused. The waiver of counsel requires more than a showing of a knowledge of right to counsel; there must also be evidence of relinquishment of this right. In other words, the record should establish that the defendant knows what he is doing in choosing self-representation and that his choice is made with eyes open. . . . The determination of whether the defendant’s waiver was knowing and voluntary depends upon the particular facts and circumstances in each case, including the defendant’s background, experience, and conduct. In making that determination, a trial judge must investigate as long and as thoroughly as the circumstances of the case demand and on appeal, the states bears the burden of demonstrating that the trial court provided the defendant with the information and guidance necessary for a knowing and intelligent waiver. Punctuation, indentions and footnote citations omitted. Watkins v. State , 291 Ga. App. 343, 344-345 1 662 SE2d 544 2008.
Similarly, it is well settled that a criminal defendant must personally and intelligently participate in the waiver of his constitutional right to a jury trial. Pirkle v. State , 221 Ga. App. 657 472 SE2d 478 1996.
