Case Name: Christopher BACHMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2018-09-05
Citations: 253 So. 3d 1250
Docket Number: No. 1D17-1723
Parties: Christopher BACHMAN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 253
Pages: 1250–1250

Head Matter:
Christopher BACHMAN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D17-1723
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
September 5, 2018
Rachael E. Reese, O'Brien Hatfield, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Christopher Bachman appeals a "Final Order" denying almost all of his seventeen claims for postconviction relief raised pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The circuit court issued the order after holding an evidentiary hearing.
One of the arguments Mr. Bachman asserts on appeal is that the court erred by not addressing one of his claims for relief. The claim alleged that defense counsel failed to object to certain improper and prejudicial arguments by the State.
Mr. Bachman is indeed correct that the court's order did not address the second of two claims that were labeled "Ground Six" in his motion. Rather than forming a basis to reverse the order, however, the lack of a ruling on this claim deprives this court of jurisdiction. See Hanner v. State , 228 So.3d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (dismissing where "[o]n appeal, Appellant argues that the postconviction 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 file a future appeal after the circuit court has ruled on all of his claims.
DISMISSED .
Wolf, Osterhaus, and Winsor, JJ., concur.