MARK O. ELLIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PALMER, J.
Mark Orben Ellis appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850. Concluding that the trial court erred in denying the motion solely on the basis that it was not notarized, we reverse.
In order for a rule 3.850 motion to be legally sufficient it does not have to be notarized, it only has to contain a signed declaration. See State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1993)(holding that a defendant’s post-conviction motion must contain either a notarized oath or a signed declaration). Since Ellis’ motion contained a signed declaration, it was legally sufficient. The State candidly admits that the motion was sufficient and this matter should be remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COBB and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crockett v. State, 848 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…successive because the allegations were previously addressed by the trial court on the merits, or to attach portions of the record refuting his allegations on the merits, or to conduct an evidentiary hearing on these allegations. See Ellis v. State, 800 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). See also State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 2003 WL 21088088 (Fla. May 15, 2003). REVERSED and REMANDED. PLEUS and ORFINGER, JJ„ concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1993)