Following a jury trial in the Allegan County Circuit Court, defendant was convicted of obtaining property worth more than $100 by false pretenses. MCL 750.218; MSA 28.415. Defendant was sentenced to serve two years probation with 60 days to be spent in the county jail. He now appeals as of right.
*187 Defendant allegedly obtained close to $4,000 as a settlement for a false claim filed under an insurance pоlicy which he had purchased from Meridian Mutual Insurance Company. Defendant represented himself throughout the criminal prоceedings and this is the basis of his meritorious claim on appeal.
On November 25, 1981, in the 57th District Court, defendant waived his right to a preliminаry examination on the instant charge. On December 4, 1981, he appeared for the circuit court arraignment without counsеl and indicated that he would be proceeding in propria persona. On both occasions, defendant was advised that he had the right to retain cоunsel of his choice and, if financially unable to retain counsel, that an attorney would be appointed to reprеsent him if requested. On both occasions, defendant expressed his intent to represent himself.
The record fails to show that defеndant was advised of his right to counsel, immediately prior to the commencement of trial as required by GCR 1963, 785.4(3). Following his conviction, defendant retained counsel and moved for a new trial. A hearing was conducted on this motion at which time the prosecutor who handled this case testified that the judge had asked defendant in-chambers prior to the commencement of trial whether he still intended to represent himself. The prosecutor recalled that the trial judge advised defendant that he would hold him to thе same standards as an attorney in his courtroom. The prosecutor could not recall if the judge had advised defendant оf the right to appointed counsel at this time. Following the hearing, the trial court denied the motion for a new trial. Its order stated that any error committed in respect to the required advice concerning *188 waiver of counsel was "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”.
On appeal, defendant and the prоsecution agree that the trial court failed to comply with GCR 1963, 785.4(3). 1 The prosecution argues, however, that defendant’s cоnviction should be affirmed because it is clear that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. The prosecution relies on the record made at the hearing on defendant’s motion for a new trial to show that defendant had been advised in-сhambers of his right to counsel immediately before the commencement of the trial. We believe that GCR 1963, 785.4(3) must be strictly complied with and does not permit the trial court to correct noncompliance with the rule after the proceeding in issue by making a record which purports to show that the requirements of the rule were satisfied off the record. Moreover, even if wе were to accept this position, the record of the hearing on the motion for a new trial fails to show that defendant was advised of the right to appointed counsel in-chambers before trial. The prosecutor who participatеd in the in-chambers conference admitted that he *189 could not recall if this advice was given. GCR 1963, 785.4(3) requires, however, that "the reсord must affirmatively show at each proceeding” that this advice was given.
In addition to the trial court’s failure to comply with GCR 1963, 785.4(3) immеdiately prior to trial, the record also fails to show that defendant was informed of the dangers and disadvantages of self-rеpresentation as required by
People v Holcomb,
Both the Michigan Suprme Court and the United States Supreme Court have held that an ineffective waiver оf counsel at a preliminary examination does not necessarily require reversal but, rather, some prejudice must be shоwn.
Chapman v California,
Defendant’s claim that the verdict was agianst the great weight of the еvidence is without merit.
Reversed and remanded.
Notes
GCR 1963, 785.4(3) provides:
"Even though a defendant has waived the assistance of a lawyer, the court shall advise him at each subsequent proceeding (e.g., preliminary examination, arraignment, proceedings leading to possible revocation of youthful trainee status, hearings, trial, or sentencing) of his right to a lawyer at public expense. Before the court proceеds,
"(a) the defendant must reaffirm that he does not want a lawyer’s assistance; or
"(b) if he is eligible for and then requests the appоintment of a lawyer, the court must appoint one; or
"(c) if he wants to retain a lawyer and has the financial ability to do sо, the court must allow him a reasonable opportunity to retain a lawyer.
"If the defendant is not represented by a lawyer, the record must affirmatively show at each proceeding that advice on the right to a lawyer at public expense was given and that the defendant waived that right.”