Case Name: James McDOLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2010-11-02
Citations: 46 So. 3d 1154
Docket Number: No. 1D10-2376
Parties: James McDOLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: BENTON and ROWE, JJ., concur; THOMAS, J., concurs with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 46
Pages: 1154–1156

Head Matter:
James McDOLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D10-2376.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Nov. 2, 2010.
James McDole, pro se, Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Edward C. Hill, Jr., Special Counsel Criminal Appeals, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER 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. 3.853; § 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 post-conviction DNA testing, permits defendants who have pled guilty or nolo contendere to file rule 3.853 motions). We therefore direct the lower court to consider the merits of the instant motion and address its claims.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BENTON and ROWE, JJ., concur; THOMAS, J., concurs with opinion.