Summary
holding this court may affirm where trial court reached correct result even if wrong reasoning was applied
Summary of this case from Amorello v. TauckOpinion
No. 4D00-1617
Opinion filed August 23, 2000 JULY TERM 2000
Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Barry E. Goldstein, Judge; L.T. Case No. 97-4646CF10.
Joe Lowery, Immokalee, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine M. Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
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, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S137 (Fla. Feb. 17, 2000) as revised by 25 Fla. L. Weekly S359 (Fla. May 4, 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 affirmnonetheless 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, No.2D00-2309, 2000 WL 954838 (Fla. 2d DCA July 12, 2000).
AFFIRMED.
STEVENSON, SHAHOOD and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.