Following the grant of habeas corpus relief to Ameer Hemdani, the State appeals, contending that the habeas court erred by finding that Hemdani’s guilty plea to one count of sexual battery and one count of simple battery were not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. We affirm.
In habeas proceedings, the State bears the burden of showing that a challenged guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered.
1
To satisfy this burden, the State may point to evidence on the record of the guilty plea hearing that the defendant was fully informed and cognizant of all of his rights being waived and the consequences of his plea, as required by
Boykin v. Alabama,
In this case, the record shows that, on December 18, 2001, an accusation was filed against Hemdani for two counts of sexual battery and one count of simple battery. On March 7, 2002, Hemdani, who was represented by counsel, entered a negotiated plea of guilty to one count of sexual battery and one count of simple battery. 2 Hemdani later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on November 17, 2006, alleging, among other things, that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered in accordance with Boykin, supra. See also USCR 33.8. Specifically, Hemdani maintained that, although he had been informed by the trial court of his right to a jury trial, he had not been properly informed of his remaining two Boykin rights, namely his right to the assistance of counsel at trial and his right against self-incrimination. The State concedes this fact, and, *512 although the plea hearing was audiotaped, the State provided neither a functional copy of that tape nor a transcription for inclusion in the record.
The record does contain a plea agreement which Hemdani signed prior to entering his plea, and this agreement does list the requisite Boykin rights. Hemdani’s attorney apparently signed this form as well; however, the form contains no representations from Hemdani’s attorney regarding any interaction she may have had with her client regarding the plea form or its contents. Furthermore, no evidence of this interaction, if any, was provided at the habeas hearing, as Hemdani’s attorney was neither called as a witness nor otherwise questioned about the events of the plea hearing.
This record supports the habeas court’s grant of relief to Hemdani. First, it is undisputed that the trial court did not fully inform Hemdani of his
Boykin
rights during his plea hearing. Second, there is no evidence of record that the trial court entered into any colloquy with Hemdani to ensure that he read and fully understood the plea agreement which he signed. Third, there is no evidence that Hemdani’s trial counsel discussed his
Boykin
rights with him or that it was her standard practice of doing so. See
Green v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The State attempts to argue that Hemdani should have the burden of proof in this case based upon
Nash v. State,
As a result of Hemdani’s conviction and sentence (which has already been served in its entirety), Hemdani now faces deportation.