JOE LOWERY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, even though it disagreed with the trial court's reasoning, because the appellant's claim regarding gain-time must first be addressed by the Department of Corrections.
Appellant sought post-conviction relief challenging his habitual felony offender sentence based on gain-time entitlement for an offense during the Heg…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tipsy Coachman Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Joe Lowery seeks review of an order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Appellant’s motion purports to challenge his habitual felony offender sentence following his guilty plea and adjudication for delivery of cocaine, but his claim is directed to gain-time entitlement. His offense occurred during the window period of Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000), which he cites as the basis of his challenge.
The trial court summarily denied relief on the grounds that appellant did not fall within the window period. We disagree, but affirm nonetheless for different reasons. This court may affirm a trial court decision deemed “right for a different reason” under the “tipsy coachman” rule acknowledged as. far back as Carraway v. Armour & Co., 156 So. 2d 494 (Fla.1963).
We affirm the summary denial of post-conviction relief in this case because appellant’s gain-time challenge must first be entertained in the Department of Corrections. If the appellant is not satisfied with its ruling, then he can file a petition for writ of mandamus with the appropriate circuit court. See Clements v. State, 761 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
AFFIRMED;
STEVENSON, SHAHOOD and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Castella v. State, 959 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…vide assistance to those affected by a potentially life-threatening accident. We affirm on this basis, even though the trial court did not consider and was not asked to consider this doctrine, based on the “tipsy coachman” rule. See Lowery v. State, 766 So. 2d 417, 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(“This court may affirm a trial court decision deemed ‘right for a different reason’ under the ‘tipsy coachman’ rule.”). The community caretaking doctrine addresses those law enforcement functions that are “totally divorced…
-
Robertson v. State, 780 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…ld if there is any theory or principle of law in the record which would support the ruling.” Dade County School Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 644 (Fla.1999); see also Carraway v. Armour & Co., 156 So. 2d 494 (Fla.1963); Lowery v. State, 766 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). For the following reasons, this analysis is inappropriate in this case. The state never filed a notice of intent to rely on evidence of defendant’s prior misconduct in this case. Consequently, the admissibility of the evidence…
-
Orie Kennard v. State, 903 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…Tipsy [*246] Coachman Rule, which provides that an appellate court may affirm a trial court’s judgment if the judgment is legally correct, regardless of the trial court’s reasoning. See Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla.2002); Lowery v. State, 766 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). If an officer has probable cause to believe a felony is being committed in his presence, he can search the car without a warrant. Ensor v. State, 403 So. 2d 349, 353 (Fla.1981). In Brinegar v. U.S., 338 U.S. 160, 175, 69 S.Ct.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Carraway v. Armour & Co. & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 156 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1963)
- Clements v. State, 761 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Hickey v. Dunn & Corey, 761 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)