In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Q: 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>). Since Ellis' motion contained a signed
Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendants postconviction motion must contain either a notarized oath or a signed declaration (B) holding that there was no error where the motion court denied the defendants motion for postconviction relief without an express finding that the defendants escape impacted the criminal justice system (C) holding that the defendants habeas claim was procedurally barred because it could have been or was raised in his postconviction motion (D) holding that a claim is proeedurally barred where it was not raised in the defendants motion for postconviction relief (E) holding that claims not raised in a timely postconviction motion are waived
A:
holding that there was no error where the motion court denied the defendants motion for postconviction relief without an express finding that the defendants escape impacted the criminal justice system