Dillard, Presiding Judge. Edwin Newbern appeals from the revocation of his probation, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to (1) inform him of his right to request appointed counsel, (2) determine whether he was entitled to appointed counsel, and (3) state reasons on the record for refusing to allow him to have appointed counsel. For the reasons set forth infra, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand the case for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion. The record shows that in March 2017, Newbern was indicted on two counts of exploitation and intimidation of a disabled adult, elder person, or resident (Counts 1 and 3); and two counts of theft by deception (Counts 2 and 4). Several months later, in October 2017, Newbern entered into a negotiated guilty plea to Count 1, by which he was sentenced to, inter alia, pay $9,438.59 in restitution to the victim and spend ten years on probation. The remaining counts were nol prossed. But in February 2019, the State moved to revoke Newbern’s probation on the ground that he had failed to make his monthly payment of restitution to the victim since March 2018. Then, following a hearing on the matter, the trial court revoked Newbern’s probation and ordered him to spend five years in confinement. This appeal follows. 1. In three separate enumerations of error, Newbern argues that the trial court erred by failing to inform him of his right to request appointed counsel, determine whether he was entitled to appointed counsel, and state reasons on the record for refusing to allow him to have appointed counsel. As the Supreme Court of Georgia has explained, although there is “no Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a revocation proceeding,” a probationer does have “a more limited due process right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment.”[1] But even under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the probationer in a revocation proceeding “has no ‘inflexible constitutional’ right to have counsel appointed,”[2] so there is “no absolute requirement that he be informed of that right.”[3] Nevertheless, a probationer is entitled to “be informed of his right to request counsel.”[4] And consistent with this requirement, our Supreme Court has further explained that—even with “the more limited and conditional right to counsel” in proceedings such as those seeking to revoke probation—the right “is not waived merely by a party unknowingly failing to insist upon a lawyer in a proceeding in which he is not even advised that he might request counsel.”[5] With this in mind, the appointment of counsel for a probationer “must be determined ‘on a casebycase basis’ and the presence and participation of counsel will probably be both undesirable and constitutionally unnecessary in most revocation hearings.”[6] Thus, it is only in a revocation proceeding in which “fundamental fairness—the touchstone of due process—mandates the appointment of counsel that the State will be required to provide the probationer with legal representation.”[7] As the Supreme Court of the United States explained in Gagnon v. Scarpelli,[8] “presumptively,”[9] counsel should be appointed when requested based on a timely and colorable claim (i) that [the probationer] has not committed the alleged violation of the conditions upon which [the probationer] is at liberty; or (ii) that, even if the violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and that the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present.[10] And then, in passing on a request for the appointment of counsel, the “responsible agency also should consider, especially in doubtful cases, whether the probationer appears to be capable of speaking effectively for himself.”[11] After considering the foregoing, if the request for counsel is refused, “the grounds for refusal should be stated succinctly in the record.”[12] Here, at the beginning of the hearing, the following colloquy transpired: THE COURT: Mr. Newbern, you’re in court today for a hearing on a petition to revoke your probation . . . . The procedure is I need to advise you that you have the right to remain silent. You do not have to say anything that might incriminate yourself. The [S]tate has the obligation or requirement under the law to prove any allegation they contend you violated your probation by. I see you are not represented by an attorney? NEWBERN: I would like to have one, Your Honor THE COURT: Do you have an attorney? NEWBERN: No, sir. THE COURT: What have you done to obtain the services of an attorney? NEWBERN: When the probation man came to the house and told me to sign the paper, I had to come to court, I’ve been looking for an attorney but I ain’t been able to get one. THE COURT: You were served with the petition. Did you read it? NEWBERN: No, sir. He just come to my house and told me to sign it and told me I had to go to court on the 19th. The trial court then explained to Newbern that the sheet he signed “outline[d] what we’re doing here today which is to have a hearing on the violations.” Additionally, the court explained the allegations, that Newbern could ask questions of witnesses, testify on his own behalf, and call his own witnesses. But the court never revisited the subject of Newbern’s desire to have counsel. It is evident from the record, then, that the trial court never advised Newbern of his right to request appointed counsel, as it should have done.[13] Indeed, even after Newbern stated on the record that he wished to have counsel, the trial court never determined whether Newbern was, in fact, entitled to have counsel appointed.[14] Additionally, the trial court never stated any reasons on the record for not appointing counsel.[15] To the contrary, the transcript of the hearing “reveals that the court gave no consideration whatsoever as to whether [Newbern] should be given such assistance.”[16] In failing to do so, the trial court erred. 2. Despite the foregoing failures by the trial court, unless Newbern’s revocation proceeding was one in which “the actual appointment of counsel was necessary to satisfy applicable due process requirements of fundamental fairness, then he would not have been entitled to have his request for counsel honored and the mere failure to have informed him of the right to make such a request could not have harmed him.”[17] In Gagnon, the Supreme Court of the United States made clear that “[t]he general guidelines outlined [by the Supreme Court] should be applied in the first instance by those charged with conducting the revocation hearing,”[18] i.e., by the trial court. To that end, both this Court and the Supreme Court of Georgia have vacated and remanded cases to the trial court to make such a determination when the court failed to do so initially.[19] This Court is aware of only once instance in which we have not remanded a case to the trial court to make this determination in the first instance. In Banks v. State,[20] the probationer requested appointed counsel, but the trial court denied the request under an erroneous legal theory.[21] Despite this error, we affirmed the court’s denial of her request and did not remand for reconsideration because (1) the probationer admitted to the probation violation, (2) she did not claim “any reasons justifying or mitigating her violations,” and (3) the record reflected that she “capably spoke for herself.”[22] As a result, we determined that the probationer in Banks “made no showing that the appointment of counsel for the revocation proceedings was necessary to satisfy due process concerns of fundamental fairness.”[23] Suffice it to say, this case is readily distinguishable from Banks. In Gagnon, the Supreme Court of the United States acknowledged that “respondent’s admission to having committed another serious crime creates the very sort of situation in which counsel need not ordinarily be provided.”[24] Indeed, this is one of the factors a trial court is to consider when assessing a probationer’s request for appointed counsel.[25] But Gagnon also provides that “even if the violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested,”[26] counsel should be provided if “there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and that the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present.”[27] In this case, the State is correct that Newbern admitted to violating the terms of probation in that he failed to make timely payments of restitution to the victim. But unlike the probationer in Banks, who did “not claim[ ] any reasons justifying or mitigating her violations,”[28] Newbern suggested that he had been unable to repay the victim due to (1) ongoing medical issues from which he suffered that required MRIs on his back, and (2) going to court so that he and his wife could take in family members’ children who had been placed into the custody of DFCS. During the hearing below, when the State asked Newbern about property it alleged that he owned, he called his wife to the stand and asked her to testify about what they owned—which did not include the land the State inquired about. But Newbern faltered while questioning his wife, telling the court, “Sir, I ain’t no lawyer, and I don’t know how to do this, I mean, you know—,” to which the court instructed Newbern that “[i]t’s not complicated” and “[y]ou need to ask her what you want me to hear.” Newbern then proceeded to ask his wife to explain how his “medical stuff” affected his ability to make money and provide for his family. In response, his wife testified that the situation was “bad,” had required multiple doctor visits, and left Newbern unable to work. This was the extent of the testimony on that issue, and the documents Newbern brought to court to reflect his medical problems—which purportedly included a letter from his doctor and medical records—were never tendered into the record. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that a remand is unnecessary in this case. As a result, for all of the foregoing reasons, we vacate the order of revocation and remand the case so that the trial court may either state its reasons for not appointing counsel when Newbern indicated that he wished to have an attorney represent him at the hearing or, alternatively, proceed with a new revocation hearing, in which Newbern is afforded the opportunity to be represented by counsel.[29] Judgment vacated and case remanded. Rickman and Brown, JJ., concur.
