in nature, but contains guidelines to ensure that the substantive right to counsel is protected.” State v. T.G., 800 So.2d 204, 211 (Fla.2001). The detailed inquiry and waiver verified by counsel are required by rule 8.165 to determine whether k waiver of counsel was made “knowingly and intelligently in consideration of [the juvenile’s] age, education,- experience, mental condition, and the nature and complexity of the case.” Id. at 212 (quoting P.L.S. v. State, 745 So.2d 555, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). The supreme court explained that if it appears from the face of the record that the trial court did not comply with the specific procedures of rule 8.165, including conducting a ‘thorough inquiry into the child’s comprehension of that offer [of the assistance of counsel] and th 2007) (<HOLDING>). The trial court’s failure to comply with rule
holding fundamental error occurred because merely informing a juvenile of the role of counsel and asking the juvenile if he understands that he is giving up his right to counsel does not constitutethe thorough inquiry concerning the juveniles comprehension of the offer of counsel that is mandated by rule 8165b2 holding that juveniles may waive right to counsel only upon advice of counsel holding that juvenile and his parents must be advised of the right to counsel in juvenile proceedings and the mothers knowledge that she could employ counsel was not an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a fully known right recognizing juveniles right to counsel in certain juvenile proceedings holding that the court without violating due process of the law may conduct a hearing to determine whether to waive juvenile jurisdiction even if the juvenile fails to appear if counsel is present and allowed to participate on the juveniles behalf