TERRANCE A. LAKE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
An order disposing of only some claims in a post-conviction relief motion is not a final, appealable order.
[1] An order disposing of some, but not all, of the claims in a motion for post-conviction relief is not an appealable final order.
[2] A trial court's order must be in writing to properly deny claims in a motion for post-conviction relief.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief, and the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on some claims but did not explicitly rule on oth…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Final Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We dismiss the appeal for the reasons that follow.
Appellant raised eight claims in his motion.1 The state agreed that three of the claims required an evidentiary hearing, but argued that the other claims were legally insufficient and/or refuted by the record. The trial court appointed counsel for Appellant and the matter proceeded to an evidentiary hearing on the three claims that the state agreed required an eviden-tiary hearing.2
*1126After the hearing, the trial court entered an order denying the motion and informing Appellant of his right to appeal. The order specifically addressed only those claims presented at the evidentiary hearing, and as discussed below, there is no indication in the record that the trial court summarily denied the remaining claims.3 There is also no indication in the record that Appellant abandoned the claims that were not presented at the evidentiary hearing, and to the contrary, his counsel specifically asked the trial court at the hearing to rule on all of the claims raised in the motion.
It is well-settled that an order disposing of some, but not all of the claims in a motion for postconviction relief is not an appealable final order. See Edler v. State, 673 So.2d 970, 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (citing McCoy v. State, 487 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), and White v. State, 450 So.2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)). In response to our order directing Appellant to show cause why this case should not be dismissed on this basis, Appellant conceded that the trial court’s order was not an appealable final order, but he also asked us to direct the trial court to allow him to correct any pleading deficiencies in his motion in accordance with Spera.4 In reply, the state argued that Appellant should not be permitted to amend his post-conviction motion because he had an evi-dentiary hearing on his claims. The state also argued that the trial court’s order is an appealable final order because it “tacitly denied all claims for postconviction relief through its strong language that trial counsel did a commendable job, etc.” (emphasis in original).
We decline to construe the trial court’s order in the manner suggested by the state. First, the order only discusses the claims presented at the evidentiary hearing. Second, the “strong language” in the order referred to by the state appears to relate only to the claims presented at the evidentiary hearing because it indicates that no evidence was presented “at hearing ... remotely supporting [Appellant’s] contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial” (emphasis added), and the only claims considered at the evidentiary hearing were the three that *1127the state agreed required an evidentiary hearing. Third, the order does not include any record excerpts or discussion of the legal insufficiency of the other claims as would be expected if the order were also intended to summarily deny the claims in the motion that were not presented at the evidentiary hearing.
Accordingly, we construe the order on appeal to dispose of only the three claims presented at the evidentiary hearing, and because the trial court’s judicial labor on Appellant’s motion is not yet complete, we dismiss this appeal. In doing so, we express no view on the sufficiency or merits of the remaining claims or whether the trial court should allow Appellant to amend the claims that were not presented at the evidentiary hearing. Also, as in Edler, the dismissal of this appeal is without prejudice to an appeal of the final order disposing of all the claims raised in Appellant’s motion.
DISMISSED.
BENTON, C.J., WETHERELL and ROWE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hanner v. State, 228 So. 3d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…“The order issued after the evidentiary hearing shall resolve all the claims in the motion .... ”). However, as the State argues, we do not [*1162] have jurisdiction to review the order because it is not an appealable final order. See Lake v. State, 53 So. 3d 1125, 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“It is well-settled that an order disposing of some, but not all of the claims in a motion for postconviction relief is not an appealable final order.”); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(4) (“An order that does not resolve all th…
-
Bachman v. State, 253 So. 3d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…ostconviction court erred by failing to address all of the claims in his motion”). “It is well-settled that an order disposing of some, but not all of the claims in a motion for postconviction relief is not an appealable final order.” Lake v. State, 53 So. 3d 1125, 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). See also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(8)(C) (“The order issued after the evidentiary hearing shall resolve all the claims in the motion . . . .”). We therefore dismiss this appeal without prejudice to Mr. Bachman’s ability to…
-
Pressley v. State, 69 So. 3d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…d in appellant’s original motion, it never addressed the fourteenth ground raised in his supplemental motion. This court does not have jurisdiction to review a postconviction order that does not dispose of all claims raised below. See Lake v. State, 53 So. 3d 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Magwood v. State, 937 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); White v. State, 886 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Edler v. State, 673 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without prejudice to appellant fi…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- White v. State, 450 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Prado-Gonzalez v. State, 468 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Sanders v. State, 673 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Edler v. State, 673 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- McCOY v. State, 487 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)