¶1The appellant challenges multiple judgments of conviction and sentences for the sale of cocaine, and possession with intent to sell. Because the court failed to conduct a sufficiently thorough inquiry in connection with the appellant’s decision to represent himself at trial, the convictions must be reversed.
¶2The necessity for a thorough inquiry when a defendant waives the right to counsel derives from Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(d). As Farettaindicates, a defendant’s decision in this regard must be knowingly and intelligently made, and the defendant should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. Numerous cases applying Farettaand rule 3.111(d) have described the necessary parameters of the required inquiry. See e.g., Taylor v. State, 610 So.2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Hayes v. State, 566 So.2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Smith v. State, 444 So.2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Although the court made some inquiry in the present case; and cautioned the appellant against self-representation, the inquiry fell short of that which is mandated by cases such as Taylor.
¶3*875Because the appellant’s convictions must be reversed due to the absence of a sufficient Farettainquiry, it is unnecessary to address his remaining assertions of error. The convictions are reversed, and the cause is remanded.