Did Mr. Atwater show a violation of the right to determine the objective of his defense and his right to hold the State to its burden of proof of each element beyond, and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, as articulated by this Court in McCoy v. Louisiana, when he had explicitly entered a plea of not guilty and maintained his innocence to counsel?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED When an individual enters a plea of not guilty, the burden of proving every element of the offense is solely on the State. The accused is presumed innocent. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution demands that counsel for the accused hold the State to its burden of proof. The Petitioner, Jeffrey Lee Atwater, exercised these rights when he entered a plea of not guilty. By doing so, he demanded that the State meet its burden. Mr. Atwater’s trial counsel certainly knew of his not guilty plea and the substantial responsibility it placed on counsel. Mr. Atwater never wavered from his initial plea, never conceded guilt to counsel, and never released the State from its burden. Mr. Atwater proceeded to trial with the belief that the State would continue to have the burden of proof and that his plea of not guilty had the authority that the Constitution demanded. Mr. Atwater was mistaken. Without even consulting Mr. Atwater, trial counsel proceeded to override Mr. Atwater’s decision and jettison his right to hold the State to its burden. Even worse, counsel did so in a manner in which Mr. Atwater could not have anticipated counsel’s concession and could not lodge an appropriate objection or otherwise have communicated to the jury that he was not admitting guilt. To do so would have drawn the contempt of the trial court in full view of the jury. He was not required to make such a spectacle to maintain his rights. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Atwater’s claim did not rise to the level of a McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 8. Ct. 1500 (2018) violation because of the court’s creation of additional requirements beyond this Court’s decision in McCoy. Accordingly, Mr. Atwater presents the following questions: 1. Did Mr. Atwater show a violation of the right to determine the objective of his defense and his right to hold the State to its burden of proof of each element beyond, and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, as articulated by this Court in McCoy v. Louisiana, when he had explicitly entered a plea of not guilty and maintained his innocence to counsel? 2. Whether the Florida Supreme Court may de facto overrule this Court and create a requirement of a preemptory objection to unknown trial strategy of conceding guilt and/or a contemporaneous objection by an accused individual to his own counsel when silenced by court rules and without foreknowledge that counsel would waive his rights? il