Legal Opinion

McDole v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 2, 2010No. 1D10-2376PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

After reviewing the state’s response to this Court’s show cause order, we conclude that the appellant’s rule 3.853 motion is facially sufficient. See Fla. R.Crim. P. *11553.853; § 925.11(l)(a)2.; (2)(a)l.-6., Fla. Stat. (2009). Thus, the trial court should have reviewed the merits of the appellant’s claim and either attached records conclusively refuting his assertions, or held a hearing on the motion. It is of no matter that the appellant entered a plea to the charges. See Glenn v. State, 954 So.2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (stating that the 2006 amendment to section 925.11, which governs…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Glenn v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2007

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. McDole v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2010
  2. Rawls v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API