We granted Michael Anthony Brown a certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in order to determine whether the record of Brown’s guilty plea established that he affirmatively waived his constitutional rights under Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238 89 SC 1709, 23 LE2d 274 1969. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the habeas court’s denial of Brown’s petition. The record establishes that Brown in 1993 pled guilty to financial transaction card fraud and was sentenced to three years probation. In the course of the guilty plea proceedings, Brown completed by hand and signed a “plea of guilty nolo contendere acknowledgment and waiver of rights” form. On the form he responded to thirty questions, including negative responses to questions such as whether he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol and whether he wanted to be tried by a jury and affirmative responses to questions in which he acknowledged his understanding of the nature of the charge against him and the minimum and maximum penalties that could be imposed for the crime. In addition, he affirmatively acknowledged his understanding of his rights to trial by jury, to subpoena witnesses and to confront his accusers. He also responded affirmatively to the question, “do you know and understand that you do not have to say, sign, or do anything that will show or tend to show you are guilty unless you want to.” At the conclusion of the waiver of rights form, Brown’s attorney signed a “certificate of lawyer” in which counsel certified that he reviewed “all of the above questions with Brown and have assured myself that Brown knows and understands them” and that Brown had indicated he understood his rights and affirmed his waiver thereof by initialing the appropriate blank after each question.
The transcript of the guilty plea hearing establishes that the trial court questioned Brown about the waiver of rights forms. Brown answered affirmatively when he was asked by the trial court whether he had reviewed the waiver of rights form with counsel, whether he had answered the questions on the form truthfully and whether he had “understood that process.” The trial court then informed Brown that he could plead not guilty and be tried by a jury, but that the court would impose sentence if Brown pled guilty. There was no colloquy specifically about the other two Boykin rights. Counsel at the hearing merely acknowledged affirmatively that he had advised Brown “of his legal and Constitutional rights” and was satisfied that Brown understood those rights.
