Holland v. State

484 So. 2d 596, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 206, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 5898
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 15, 1986·No. No. 85-2583·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mr. Holland’s motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 was denied without an evidentia-ry hearing. Holland appeals, contending that he was entitled to a hearing under authority of Morgan v. State, 475 So.2d 681 (Fla.1985). Facially, Holland is correct. However our review leaves us convinced that the error was harmless according to applicable criteria and that no purpose would be served by remanding for a hearing. Palmes v. State, 397 So.2d 648 (Fla.1981) and Recinos v. State, 420 So.2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). See also Section 924.-33, Florida Statutes (1984).

Affirmed.

LETTS, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Holland v. State, 484 So. 2d 596, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 206, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 5898 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

484 So. 2d 596 (Holland v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Holland v. State
503 So. 2d 1250 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)