Where there is no record of a defendant's waiver of counsel, it is impossible to determine upon appellate review whether a waiver was knowing and intelligent. State v. Edwards, 361 N.W.2d 90, 91 (Minn.App. 1985). In such instances, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.

When appellant made subsequent court appearances, the record again fails to show that he was asked whether he understood that the court could appoint an attorney if he could not afford one. An appellate court must refuse "to presume a waiver of constitutional rights from a silent record." State v. Fussy, 467 N.W.2d 601, 603 (Minn. 1991) (citing Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1711-12 (1969)); see State v. Edwards, 361 N.W.2d 90, 91 (Minn.App. 1985) (holding that it is impossible to determine on review whether a defendant's waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent where there is no record of such waiver). Our review occurs on the record furnished to the court by the trial court administrator.

The facts here do not show any judicial examination to establish that Mueller's waiver was made "with full knowledge and understanding of his rights." See State v. Edwards, 361 N.W.2d 90, 91 (Minn.App. 1985) (reversing conviction where there was no record of a valid waiver of counsel). The record is also devoid of facts or surrounding circumstances similar to those in Krejci, Rubin, or Savior from which we might infer that Mueller's choice to proceed pro se was knowing and intelligent.