OCTAVIO CAZAREZ
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court's order denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence may be affirmed where there is any basis in the record supporting the judgment, even if the court reached the right result for the wrong reasons.
[1] Where a trial court denies a motion to correct an illegal sentence, an appellate court may affirm the order if any basis exists in the record to support the judgment, reg…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the 'tipsy coachman' doctrine, allows an appellate court to affirm a trial court that 'reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons' so long as 'there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record.'”
Court's explanation of the standard for affirming trial court decisions
Octavio Cazarez filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which the trial court denied.…
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.
Octavio Cazarez has filed a petition seeking certiorari review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence, which he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We treat the petition as an appeal, see Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c) (“If a party seeks an improper remedy, the cause shall be treated as if the proper remedy had been sought; provided that it shall not be the responsibility of the court to seek the proper remedy.”), and affirm. See Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 906 (Fla. 2002) (recognizing that the “longstanding principle of appellate law, sometimes referred to as the ‘tipsy coachman’ doctrine, allows an appellate court to affirm a trial court that ‘reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons’ so long as ‘there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record.’ (quoting Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 644–645 (Fla.1999))).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anne (Sandy) Batchelor-Robjohns v. United States, 788 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2015)…be “established,” for example, by a court, that the taxpayer did not have an unrestricted right to the income. See id. at 739. The Tax Court has determined that. payments made to settle a lawsuit may satisfy this requirement. See Barrett v. Comm’r, 96 T.C. 713 (1991). When § 1341 applies, the taxpayer is required to pay the lesser of two computed tax payments in the year of repayment. See 26 U.S.C. § 1341(a) (“the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year shall be the lesser of’ the two computation…
Authorities Cited
- Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station Wqba, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1999)
- Swett v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002)