PHILLIP DYLAND HOLLAND, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PHILLIP DYLAND HOLLAND, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
484 So. 2d 596
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1986)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
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).
Affirmed.
LETTS, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holland v. State, 503 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1987)…BARKETT, Judge. We have for review Holland v. State, 484 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), which conflicts with Morgan v. State, 475 So. 2d 681 (Fla.1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The opinion of the district court below purports to apply the doctrine of harmless error to an erroneous deni…
Authorities Cited
- Palmes v. State, 397 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1981)
- Recinos v. State, 420 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Morgan v. State, 475 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1985)