WELLS v. STATE (2019)

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.

Per Curiam.

Lewis, Winsor, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.