Pinson, Judge. After representing himself at trial, Ronald Stewart was convicted of aggravated battery, felony obstruction of an officer, and simple battery. He argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient as to each of these charges, and that the trial court erred in ruling that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his constitutional right to counsel. We hold that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Stewart’s convictions. But we agree that the trial court erred in concluding that Stewart’s waiver was knowing and voluntary. In the months before trial, Stewart retained three different attorneys, and after the third one withdrew, he consistently maintained that he would retain counsel before trial. When he showed up for trial without counsel, the court did not hold a hearing under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (V) (95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 LEd2d 562) (1975), or even discuss with Stewart the dangers of proceeding without counsel. And even assuming the standard for waiver could be met without having a hearing or discussion at the time of the waiver decision, no substantive discussion of those dangers appears anywhere in the record of pretrial proceedings. Under these circumstances, and given the presumption against waiver of the constitutional right to counsel, the trial court erred in concluding that Stewart knowingly and voluntarily waived that fundamental right. So we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for a new trial. Background While in jail on charges of family violence battery and theft by taking, Ronald Stewart got into a fight with his cellmate.[1] During the fight, Stewart punched his cellmate in the mouth. He then followed the cellmate out into the common room of the cell block and continued attacking him until an officer intervened. As a result of the attack, the cellmate suffered a broken jaw and substantial bleeding. Three months later, Stewart attacked a corrections officer. The officer had asked Stewart to comply with the dress code by putting on the upper part of his jumpsuit and removing his headband. Stewart refused, cursed at the officer, and walked into his room. The officer followed him and Stewart tried to gouge out the officer’s eyes. When the officer pushed Stewart out of his room, Stewart grabbed the officer’s neck and continued to struggle until more officers arrived to help subdue him. Stewart was charged in two separate indictments with aggravated battery (as to the cellmate) and felony obstruction of an officer and simple battery (as to the officer). After his initial indictment in May 2017, Stewart declined the assistance of the public defender and instead hired an attorney. That attorney withdrew almost immediately, at which point Stewart hired a different one. In September 2017, Stewart asked that his second attorney be released and spoke to the trial court about hiring new counsel or proceeding to trial pro se. In October 2017, Stewart hired a third attorney. In February 2018, after a hearing, the trial court entered an order over Stewart’s objections authorizing Stewart’s third attorney to withdraw. In March 2018, Stewart filed a pro se speedy trial demand. Stewart appeared pro se at a motions hearing on April 4, 2018. The trial court asked whether Stewart intended to hire counsel, and he told the trial court he intended to retain a new attorney but had not yet done so. The trial court commented to Stewart that “we talked about the pitfalls about representing yourself before,” to which Stewart responded affirmatively. Stewart then confirmed that he planned to hire an attorney. The relevant portion of the colloquy is as follows: COURT: We talked about the pitfalls about representing yourself before. STEWART: Yes, sir. COURT: Do you intend on trying to hire somebody? STEWART: Yes, sir. Sir, I have somebody. My intention is to go to trial, sir. I will have an attorney by trial. [....] COURT: So if you are going to get an attorney you need to go ahead and get an attorney so that attorney can be prepared to go to trial. … [I]t is the week of April 30th so that is less than a month. An attorney needs a significant amount of time to prepare for a trial of a case. STEWART: Yes, sir. … I have been talking with the attorney so I am just waiting to just see how things go.
