Bernard Ramkelawan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bernard Ramkelawan v. State

152 So. 3d 680, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18837, 2014 WL 6460612

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 19, 2014

Docket4D14-608

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 152 So. 3d 680 (Bernard Ramkelawan v. State) 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

Bernard Ramkelawan v. State, 152 So. 3d 680, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18837, 2014 WL 6460612 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Bernard Ramkelawan appeals the summary denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus and its addendum. Although we agree with' the trial court’s ultimate conclusion that the petition warranted denial, we affirm for reasons other than those stated by the court. Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901 (Fla.2002). “This 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.’ ” Id. at 906 (quoting Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638, 644-45 (Fla.1999)). The appellant raised challenges to his Broward convictions that could have been raised on direct appeal or in a timely rule 3.850 postconvietion motion. See Nelson v. State, 43 So.3d 20, 34 (Fla.2010) (recognizing that habeas corpus cannot be used to raise claims that must be brought in a postconviction motion under rule 3.850 or to raise procedurally barred claims of trial court error); Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236, 1245 (Fla.2004) (“The remedy of habeas corpus is not available in Florida to obtain the kind of collateral postconviction relief available by motion in the sentencing court pursuant to rule 3.850.”).

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Bernard Ramkelawan appeals the summary denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus and its addendum. Although we agree with' the trial court’s ultimate conclusion that the petition warranted denial, we affirm for reasons other than those stated by the court. Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901 (Fla.2002). “This 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.’ ” Id. at 906 (quoting Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638, 644-45 (Fla.1999)). The appellant raised challenges to his Broward convictions that could have been raised on direct appeal or in a timely rule 3.850 postconvietion motion. See Nelson v. State, 43 So.3d 20, 34 (Fla.2010) (recognizing that habeas corpus cannot be used to raise claims that must be brought in a postconviction motion under rule 3.850 or to raise procedurally barred claims of trial court error); Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236, 1245 (Fla.2004) (“The remedy of habeas corpus is not available in Florida to obtain the kind of collateral postconviction relief available by motion in the sentencing court pursuant to rule 3.850.”).

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 So. 3d 680, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18837, 2014 WL 6460612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernard-ramkelawan-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack