Legal Opinion

Holland v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 15, 1986No. 85-2583PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per 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…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Palmes v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1981
  2. Recinos v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
  3. Morgan v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1985

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Holland v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API