ANTHONY G. MURO
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Finality Of Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Among the issues Appellant raised in his post-conviction motion was an argument that the drug-sniffing dog was unreliable. The lower tribunal failed to address this issue, which renders the order denying Appellant’s post-conviction motion non-final and non-appealable. In this posture, we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss this appeal. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(8)(c) (“The order issued after the evidentiary hearing shall resolve all the claims raised in the motion and shall be considered the final order for purposes of appeal.”) (emphasis added); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(4) (“An order that does not resolve all the claims is a nonfinal, nonappealable order, which may be reviewed when a final, appealable order is entered.”); Bachman v. State, 253 So. 3d 1250,
1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (dismissing appeal from order that failed to resolve all issues raised in post-conviction motion). We express no opinion on this or any other issue Appellant has raised.
DISMISSED.
ROBERTS, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur. _____________________________