Without the benefit of counsel, appellant appeared in municipal court and entered guilty pleas to charges that she had violated municipal ordinances. Thereafter, she petitioned the superior court for a writ of certiorari, asserting that her guilty pleas had not been entered after a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel. When the superior court denied appellant's petition for the writ of certiorari, she applied to this court for a discretionary appeal and the instant appeal results from the grant of her application.
"Courts are to '. . . satisfy themselves that pleas of guilty are voluntarily and intelligently made by competent defendants with adequate advice of counsel. . . .' [Cits.]" Ward v. State, 248 Ga. 60
, 64 (3) (281 SE2d 503
) (1981). " 'Waiver of counsel and the voluntary, intelligent entry of guilty pleas, cannot be presumed from a silent record, but must be affirmatively shown by the record, or by an allegation and evidence. [Cits.]' [Cits.]" Warner v. Jones, 241 Ga. 467
, 468 (246 SE2d 320
) (1978). "It is the responsibility of the trial judge, when the accused is without counsel, to clearly determine whether there has been a proper waiver. [Cit.]" Campbell v. State, 128 Ga. App. 74
, 76 (1) (195 SE2d 664
) (1973). In the instant case, the contention is that the municipal court met its responsibility in this regard when, in the context of a mass arraignment, it informed appellant and the other defendants of their rights, including the right to counsel. In Turner v. State, 162 Ga. App. 806 (1) (293 SE2d 67) (1982)
, however, we held that "it is difficult to imagine a mass arraignment procedure which could satisfy the trial court's burden." Here, as in Turner, supra at 806-807 (1), "we find there was no examination by the court of the circumstances of this defendant's waiver of counsel. The court's burden . . . is to investigate these circumstances personally with particular regard and attention to the nature of the crimes charged and the possible penalties. . . . [T]hat burden was not met in this case. . . ." (Emphasis supplied.) "Because the record in the present case reveals without dispute that the appellant was not represented by counsel and that no inquiry whatever was made into [her] understanding of the consequences of the plea[s], we must conclude that an affirmative waiver of rights was not established, with the result that the [municipal] court erred in accepting the plea[s]. [Cits.]" Lewis v. State, 191 Ga. App. 509
, 510 (2) (382 SE2d 207
) (1989). It follows, therefore, that the superior court erred in denying appellant's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Raines F. Carter, for appellee.