Pressley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pressley v. State

69 So. 3d 1039, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14647, 2011 WL 4104953

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 16, 2011

Docket1D10-4045

StatusPublished

This text of 69 So. 3d 1039 (Pressley v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pressley v. State, 69 So. 3d 1039, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14647, 2011 WL 4104953 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. Appellant’s original motion raised thirteen grounds for relief. Before the trial court ruled on this motion, appellant timely filed a supplemental motion adding a fourteenth ground. Although the trial court later denied the thirteen grounds raised 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 filing an appeal once the trial court has rendered a final order disposing of his fourteenth claim.

DISMISSED.

THOMAS, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. Appellant’s original motion raised thirteen grounds for relief. Before the trial court ruled on this motion, appellant timely filed a supplemental motion adding a fourteenth ground. Although the trial court later denied the thirteen grounds raised 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 filing an appeal once the trial court has rendered a final order disposing of his fourteenth claim.

DISMISSED.

THOMAS, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 So. 3d 1039, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14647, 2011 WL 4104953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pressley-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack