SMITH v. STATE (2021)

Smith appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He entered a guilty plea he now claims was involuntary. He contends he did not adequately comprehend the elements of capital sexual battery and the ability of the State to prove the element of penetration.

A defendant challenging a guilty plea with a rule 3.850 motion has the burden of showing his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. See Mikenas v. State, 460 So. 2d 359, 361 (Fla. 1984). The postconviction trial court found Smith failed to meet this burden. And those findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence.

After an evidentiary hearing on the issue, the trial court denied Smith's request for relief. The court credited the testimony of the trial defense counsel who refuted Smith's claims. A trial court judge presiding over a rule 3.850 evidentiary hearing has a superior vantage point to assess the credibility of witnesses and make factual findings. Porter v. State, 788 So. 2d 917, 923 (Fla. 2001). So long as the trial judge's findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence, an appellate court “will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge on questions of fact and, likewise, on the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court.” Id.

Affirmed.

Long, J.

Lewis and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.