The remaining two reasons relate to whether appellant's motion complied with the informational requirements of rule 3.850. The legal standard is one of "substantial compliance." Majors v. State, 451 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Although appellant's original motion was somewhat deficient, his motion for rehearing supplied the two missing items of information in detail sufficient to meet the "substantial compliance" standard. Because appellant has substantially complied with the requirements of rule 3.850, and because the state has asked us to reach the merits of appellant's motion, we now consider each of appellant's contentions on the merits.
Likewise, Ground 2 does not substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 3.850(f), as it fails to contain a statement of the facts relied on in support of the ground. Majors v. State, 451 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Finally, the issue raised in Ground 1 is also without merit.