Case ID: so3d_207/html/0342-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SILBERMAN, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arthur HARDY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 2D15-5625.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Nov. 30, 2016.
    Arthur Hardy, pro se.
   SILBERMAN, Judge.

Arthur Hardy filed a timely motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 raising seven claims. The postconviction court found the third claim to be facially insufficient and afforded Mr. Hardy sixty days to amend, as required by rule 3.850(e). The postconviction court informed Mr. Hardy that the order was nonfinal and that he “may not appeal until such time as a Final Order has been rendered.” See Havens v. State, 27 So.3d 803, 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“An order dismissing a motion for postconviction relief that also provides leave to amend is not a final order for purposes of appeal.” (citing Christner v. State, 984 So.2d 561, 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008))).

Mr. Hardy failed to timely amend his third claim. Instead, after more than sixty days transpired, he filed a “motion for rehearing/motion for leave to amend 3.850 motion” attacking the nonfinal order. Following the postconviction court’s denial of his motion for rehearing/motion to amend, this appeal ensued.

Because the postconviction court has not yet entered a final, appealable order disposing of each of Mr. Hardy’s claims, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the court’s nonfinal order. See Herron v. State, 34 So.3d 206, 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (explaining that appellate courts do not have jurisdiction to review nonfinal rule 3.850 orders). On remand, the court may enter a final order denying Mr. Hardy’s third claim for failure to timely amend, see Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(3), and disposing of the remaining six claims on the merits.

Dismissed and remanded.

WALLACE and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.