Williams v. State

PER CURIAM. We accept the assistant attorney general’s commendable concession that the trial court should have considered appellant’s facially meritorious motion, albeit filed under Rule 8.800, as one filed under Rule 3.850, and considered the merits. See Hart v. State, 773 So.2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and Hart. STONE, POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ„ concur.