Court Opinion

ID: 4309772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-09-05 14:05:58.025971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:03:34.204686
License: Public Domain

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                 STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                          No. 1D17-1723
                  _____________________________

CHRISTOPHER BACHMAN,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                  _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.
Michael A. Flowers, Judge.

                        September 5, 2018

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.

                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

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.

                                  2