An Athens-Clarke County jury found Kevin Jones guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of two counts of cruelty to a child, OCGA § 16-5-70; and aggravated battery, OCGA § 16-5-24. Following the grant of his motion for an out-of-time appeal, Jones appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and contending the trial court abused its discretion in accepting his decision to represent himself at trial, in admitting the victim’s hearsay statements, in failing to grant sua sponte a mistrial based on improper prosecutorial argument, and in charging the jury on the definition of serious disfigurement. In addition, Jones contends the trial court erred in failing to merge the offenses for sentencing. For the reasons which follow, we vacate the judgment as to the two counts of cruelty to a child and affirm the judgment as to aggravated battery. 1. Jones contends the trial court abused its discretion in accepting his decision to represent himself at trial. Both the federal and state constitutions guarantee a criminal defendant the right to self-representation. See Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806 95 SC 2525, 45 LE2d 562 1975; 1983 Ga. Const., Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XII. An unequivocal assertion of the right to represent oneself, made prior to trial, should be followed by a hearing to ensure that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waives the right to counsel and understands the disadvantages of self-representation. Thaxton v. State , 260 Ga. 141, 142 390 SE2d 841 1990. To determine whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waives the right to counsel, the trial court should make inquiry into the defendant’s understanding of the specific dangers he faces from proceeding pro se. Humphries v. State , 255 Ga. App. 349, 351 1 565 SE2d 558 2002.1
Although the trial court need not use any “magic words” to determine if a valid waiver was made, the State has the burden of showing from the record that the accused understood 1 the nature of the charges against him, 2 any statutory lesser included offenses, 3 the range of possible punishments for the charges, 4 possible defenses, 5 mitigating circumstances, and 6 any other facts necessary for a broad understanding of the matter. Otherwise, there is no valid waiver. The trial judge must investigate as long and as thoroughly as the circumstances of the case demand to establish a valid waiver. Citation omitted. Hamilton v. State, 233 Ga. App. 463, 466 1 b 504 SE2d 236 1998. We review the trial court’s ruling that the State carried its burden of showing a valid waiver of the right to counsel for abuse of discretion. Ledford v. State , 247 Ga. App. 885, 887 545 SE2d 396 2001.
