Well, it looks like Florida has decided to babysit its defense attorneys. Now, a lawyer can't decide to invoke a strategy of conceding guilt at argument without the judge approving the strategy. It's official. Defense attorneys are merely babysitters. Read the article. Perhaps the Supreme Court will disagree, since they decided to hear the case.

Do you think a defense attorney should be able to invoke such a strategy without forcing the defendant to support it on the record?

Does the fact that the defense did not question the import of the state's evidence mean that the state was not "held to its burden of proof"? Seems to me any defense attorney would want some means of later proving the strategy was fully discussed with and agreed to by the client, but requiring the court to get involved seems unnecessary. Of course, when the strategy fails, the client will still be able to say he was improperly advised or influenced by his counsel (who was therefore incompetent).

So the only purpose of the first trial is to provide the defense with free discovery and depositions from the State's witnesses?

No that is too far-fetched... How many times can a Defense attorney's representation be found insufficient on appeal before his license is in jeopardy?