Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

450 So. 2d 556

Docket No. 84-414.

White v. State

Scott Dale WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 2, 1984.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1984-05-02

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[T]he question [arises] as to the ap-pealability of an order partially disposing of a Rule 3 motion. If this were purely a civil case, such a partial order would not be appealable unless it disposed of claims unrelated to the remaining claims. An order or judgment is not considered final until it disposes of all the issues presented. The same policies against allowing piecemeal appeals apply here. We see no reason not to apply this principle to orders entered on Rule 3 motions. (footnotes omitted)[.]”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Gowins v. State, Cervino v. State

Relies on 304 So. 2d 97 - SLT Warehouse Company v. Webb · Mendez v. West Flagler Family Association, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-05-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2012

12 state decisions

601984199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

¶2PER CURIAM.

¶3This appeal is from an order summarily denying several points in a motion to vacate *557 a judgment and sentence filed under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court has not disposed of the remaining point in the Rule 3 motion but an evidentiary hearing has been scheduled thereon.

¶4Thus, the question arises as to the appealability of an order partially disposing of a Rule 3 motion. If this were purely a civil case, such a partial order would not be appealable unless it disposed of claims unrelated to the remaining claims.[1] An order or judgment is not considered final until it disposes of all the issues presented. The same policies against allowing piecemeal appeals[2] apply here. We see no reason not to apply this principle to orders entered on Rule 3 motions.

¶5If appellant's remaining point is denied, he may raise all issues on appeal from the final order. This appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

¶6SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

NOTES

¶7[1] See Mendez v. West Flagler Assoc., Inc.,303 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1974) and SLT Warehouse v. Webb,304 So.2d 97 (Fla. 1974).

¶8[2] See Haddad, Partial `Final' Judgments — A Persistent Problem in Appellate Practice, 53 Fla.B.J. 204 (1979).

/450/so2d/556 · .json · Public domain