Sharpnack, Senior J.
Timothy Allen appeals from the trial court’s order revoking his probation and imposing the execution of Allen’s previously-suspended, twenty-year sentence, contending that he did not waive his right to counsel at the fact-finding hearing on the petition to revoke his probation. The State agrees that the record does not reflect a valid waiver of the right to counsel.
… The probation violation petition at issue here alleged that Allen had committed new crimes involving dealing in methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine, illegal possession of precursors, and maintaining a common nuisance.
Allen appeared pro se at his initial hearing on the petition, which was conducted at the same time as the initial hearing on the new allegations filed under a separate cause number. The trial court advised Allen of his rights under the newly filed charges. At that time, Allen told the trial court that he needed an attorney. … the court asked Allen why he could not hire his own counsel. Allen responded by saying that he would attempt to hire private counsel, but that he was currently without funds to do so. …
After a continuance, the fact-finding hearing on the probation violation was held on May 24, 2017. The State raised the issue of Allen’s attempt to gain legal representation, noting that he presently appeared pro se. … The matter proceeded without any inquiry about Allen’s efforts to obtain counsel, his ability to pay, and the record does not reflect that Allen affirmatively waived his right to counsel. Further, there was no advisement given to Allen of the dangers of proceeding pro se.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found Allen had violated the terms and conditions of his probation and imposed the execution of the twenty year, previously-suspended, sentence to be executed in the Department of Correction.
The dispositive issue upon which we decide Allen’s challenge to his probation revocation is the issue of his waiver of the right to counsel. “Probation is a favor granted by the State, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.” Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) … However, a petitioner is entitled to certain due process protections such as representation by counsel. Cooper v. State, 900 N.E.2d 64, 66 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009); see also, Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(e) (2017).
… If a petitioner makes the decision to proceed without the benefit of counsel, we must be confident that the record reflects that the right to counsel was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived. Cooper, 900 N.E.2d at 66. Without such, we are without an adequate record to establish waiver. Id.
We recognize that there are no magic words a trial court must utter to ensure that the defendant appreciates the situation, but the particular facts must show that the defendant understands, based on his background, experience, and conduct, the nature of the situation. Id.
We agree with the following from the State’s brief:
[T]hat the record in this case is inadequate to show a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel. Allen was never advised of the pitfalls of proceeding without an attorney. He was never fully questioned about his ability to understand and appreciate the proceedings. … The trial court did not establish that Allen understood that he had a right to counsel if he could not afford to retain his own, that he was waiving that right, and that certain dangers inure to proceeding pro se. …
Appellee’s Br. p. 8.
In light of the foregoing, we reverse the revocation of probation and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Kirsch, J., and Pyle, J., concur.