Holland v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 15, 1986

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1986-01-15

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1987

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Mr. Holland's motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 was denied without an evidentiary 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).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 503 So. 2d 1250 - Holland v. State

Relies on 397 So. 2d 648 - Palmes v. State · 420 So. 2d 95 - Recinos v. State · 475 So. 2d 681 - Morgan v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Mr. 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).

¶2Affirmed.

LETTS, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.