Tyrone Wells v. State of Florida

268 So. 3d 944
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 22, 2019
Docket17-4309
StatusPublished

This text of 268 So. 3d 944 (Tyrone Wells v. State of Florida) 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
Tyrone Wells v. State of Florida, 268 So. 3d 944 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D17-4309 _____________________________

TYRONE WELLS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Mark Borello, Judge.

April 22, 2019

PER CURIAM.

The Appellant, Tyrone Wells, appeals an order denying five of his six claims for postconviction relief raised pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He asserts on appeal, among other arguments, that the court erred by not addressing the sixth of his claims for relief, which alleged that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to properly advise him with respect to plea negotiations. The appellant advised the trial court that it failed to rule on this claim in his motion for rehearing, but the trial court denied the motion without comment.

We agree with the Appellant that the circuit court's order did not address the sixth claim that was 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.” Bachman v. State, 253 So. 3d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); 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). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without prejudice to the appellant’s ability to file a future appeal after the circuit court has ruled on all of his claims.

DISMISSED.

LEWIS, WINSOR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

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

Tyrone Wells, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

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

Related

Lake v. State
53 So. 3d 1125 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Timothy Hanner v. State of Florida
228 So. 3d 1161 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Christopher Bachman v. State of Florida
253 So. 3d 1250 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
268 So. 3d 944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyrone-wells-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2019.