HENRY GOWINS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1995-11-17
No. 95-2591
DAUKSCH arfd GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
662 So. 2d 1348 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1995)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that an order granting in part and denying in part a motion for post-conviction relief is not a final, appealable order.


Facts & Procedural History

The appellant appealed an order that granted partial relief on his motion for post-conviction relief and set a hearing for remaining claims. The appel…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
W. SHARP, Judge.

W. SHARP, Judge.

Gowins appeals from the trial court’s order which granted in part and denied in part his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The trial court’s order granted partial relief and set a hearing to be held October 2, 1995, to consider Gowins’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. At this point we do not know whether the hearing was held. However, any ruling made by the court was without jurisdiction because of the instant appeal.

In an identical situation, the court in White v. State, 450 So. 2d 556, 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), dismissed an appeal from an order denying in part and granting in part a 3.850 motion, on the ground that such an order is not appealable:

[T]he question as to the appealability of an order partially disposing of a Rule 3 motion. If this were purely a civil ease, such a partial order would not be appealable unless it disposed of claims unrelated to the remaining claims. An order or judgment is not considered final until it disposes of all the issues presented. The same policies against allowing piecemeal appeals apply here. We see no reason not to apply this principle to orders entered on Rule 3 motions, (footnotes omitted)

See also Stewart v. State, 647 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

DISMISSED.

DAUKSCH arfd GOSHORN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw