v. State, 835 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (finding that trial court committed reversible error when it failed to advise juvenile of right to counsel at restitution hearing even though the juvenile had previously waived counsel at arraignment); D.A. v. State, 831 So.2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (finding that trial judge failed to conduct a thorough and proper inquiry to determine juvenile's comprehension of the offer of appointed counsel prior to accepting waiver of counsel); M.Q. v. State, 818 So.2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (finding that although judge made an offer of counsel at hearing, inquiry was insufficient to satisfy the rule as to what juvenile's substantive rights were, as well as whether juvenile knowingly waived them); S.A. v. State, 816 So.2d 1201 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (reversing commitment and remanding for new plea hearing where trial court failed to adequately inquire into juvenile's waiver of right to counsel as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.165(b)(2)); T.M. v. State, 811 So.2d 837 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (finding that trial judge fundamentally erred in failing to conduct a proper inquiry regarding juvenile's waiver of counsel prior to accepting plea); J.M.B. v. State, 800 So.2d 317, 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (recognizing "that the juvenile court judge must contend with an unusually heavy docket, and was dealing, in this case, with a juvenile who was no stranger to the ways of the juvenile justice system," but finding that trial court erred in failing to renew the offer of counsel at each stage of the proceedings); V.S.J. v. State, 793 So.2d 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (finding that although court inquired about the voluntariness of juvenile's plea, it did not conduct a thorough inquiry concerning the intelligence of juvenile's waiver of counsel); G.E.F. v. State, 782 So.2d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (finding that although trial court made an abbreviated inquiry regarding waiver of counsel, the inquiry failed to satisfy the requirements of rule 8.165). Considering the apparently low appeal rate of

A knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel in a juvenile proceeding appears to require the court to: (1) inform the juvenile of the benefits he would relinquish and the danger and disadvantages of representing himself, (2) determine whether the juvenile's choice was made voluntarily and intelligently, and (3) determine whether any unusual circumstances existed which would preclude the juvenile from exercising his right to represent himself.See B.F. v. State, 747 So.2d 1061, 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); see also T.M. v. State, 811 So.2d 837 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). We have grave reservations concerning whether those tasks can ever be accomplished at a "group rights advisory."

We reverse and remand this cause so that a new plea and disposition may be entered after a proper inquiry concerning the right to appointed counsel and appellant's understanding thereof has been made. See State v. T.G., 800 So.2d 204 (Fla. 2001); T.M. v. State, 811 So.2d 837 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). REVERSED and REMANDED.

[9, 10] A trial court's failure to make or renew the offer of counsel and conduct a thorough inquiry into a juvenile's comprehension of the offer constitutes fundamental error. T.G.; T.M. v. State, 811 So.2d 837 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). If the waiver of counsel is invalid, a guilty plea entered without the advice of counsel, is involuntary as a matter of law. T.G. Further, in T.G., the supreme court held that where a juvenile is not represented by counsel and the appellate court can discern from the record that the judge failed to conduct a thorough inquiry into the juvenile's waiver of his or her right to counsel, fundamental error occurs and the juvenile may appeal despite failing to file a motion to withdraw a plea.

Based on the supreme court's previous discussion and holding in State v. T.G., 800 So.2d 204, 213 (Fla. 2001), we agree and hereby reverse S.A.'s commitment and remand for a new plea hearing. See also T.M. v. State, 811 So.2d 837, 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (reversing for failure to conduct proper inquiry into waiver of counsel). A child shall not be deemed to have waived the assistance of counsel until the entire process of offering counsel has been completed and a thorough inquiry into the child's comprehension of that offer and the capacity to make that choice intelligently and under-standingly has been made. Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.165(b)(2).