Did Mr. Bargo show that a violation of his rights occurred, pursuant to McCoy, when he explicitly entered a plea of not guilty and maintained his innocence throughout trial proceedings only to be undermined by veteran counsel who did not hold the State to its burden of proof of each and every element beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt?

QUESTION PRESENTED When an individual enters a plea of not guilty, the burden of proving every element of the charged offenses lies solely with 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 proving every element of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. The petitioner, Michael Shane Bargo, Jr. exercised these rights when he entered a plea of not guilty and, in doing so, demanded the State meet its burden. Mr. Bargo’s trial counsel was well aware of his not guilty plea. Mr. Bargo never wavered from his initial plea, never conceded guilt to counsel, and never released the State from its burden. This was further reinforced by Mr. Bargo’s choice to testify in his own defense, where he steadfastly maintained his innocence. Unfortunately, Mr. Bargo’s trial counsel, whom he trusted most, disregarded his plea and his testimony, and the State’s burden to prove the guilt of an eighteen-year-old boy, for whom the State sought the death penalty. Mr. Bargo was completely surprised in the moments that his trusted counsel chose to concede his guilt, proclaiming that he was “guilty, guilty as hell,” without so much as a discussion between this supposedly seasoned attorney and his eighteen-year-old client. Mr. Bargo did not know to make an appropriate objection or otherwise communicate to the jury that he was not admitting guilt. In fact, doing so would likely have drawn a contempt charge from the trial court in view of the jury. Mr. Bargo was not required to make a spectacle of himself to maintain his rights, nor was he aware of his ability to do so. Mr. Bargo has not had the benefit of a Florida Supreme Court ruling on this issue as his first trial predated McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018), as such, the issue was raised, but never ruled on prior to resentencing. Accordingly, Mr. Bargo presents the following question: 1. Did Mr. Bargo show that a violation of his rights occurred, pursuant to McCoy, when he explicitly entered a plea of not guilty and maintained his innocence throughout trial proceedings only to be undermined by veteran counsel who did not hold the State to its burden of proof of each and every element beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt? ii