IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
MICHAEL J. DUFF
v. Appeal No. CRC 03-85 APANO
Opinion filed ________________.
Appeal from a decision of
County Judge Patrick Caddell
Michael J. Duff, Pro Se
Kristen Howatt, Esq.
Assistant State Attorney
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Michael Duff’s appeal from a decision of the Pinellas County Court to deny his motion for post-conviction relief. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court affirms the decision.
The defendant was granted an evidentiary hearing on his claims. A review of the transcript of the evidentiary hearing reveals that there was conflicting testimony about whether or not the defendant was advised about the consequences of entering his plea. The defendant claimed that his attorney did not properly inform him, but his attorney testified that she did. The trial judge resolved the conflict in the testimony against the defendant. There is no error.
The defendant also claims that he was on psychotropic medication at the time he entered his plea, and that the State failed to refute this allegation. The defendant appears to misunderstand the nature of an evidentiary hearing. Although the defendant’s claims must be accepted as being true for purposes of deciding to grant an evidentiary hearing, once such a hearing is granted, the initial burden is then on the defendant to go forward with evidence to support his allegations. See Thomas v. State, 206 So.2d 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). The transcript of the evidentiary hearing reveals that the defendant failed to present any evidence supporting his contention. Thus, there was no burden on the State to disprove the allegations. The defendant failed to meet his burden. Therefore, it was proper for the trial court to deny the requested relief.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed.
AND ORDERED in Chambers at
James R. Case
Nancy Moate Ley
John A. Schaefer
cc: State Attorney Michael Duff