Christopher Boatwright v. State
235 So. 3d 968
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant was found to have willfully and materially violated probation after a bench trial and was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment following revocation.
- Appellant timely moved for a new trial; the motion was denied and he appealed. This court affirmed his judgment and sentence in Boatwright v. State.
- About three months after the appellate mandate issued, Appellant filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 postconviction motion raising four grounds for relief.
- The postconviction court summarily denied the 3.850 motion, but its order contained an inconsistent timeliness rationale (stating both that Appellant had appealed and also that he did not appeal).
- The court of appeal affirmed the summary denial under the tipsy coachman doctrine, concluding most claims were non-cognizable and the remaining claim lacked merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of 3.850 motion | Motion filed >2 years after violation proceeding so untimely | Motion filed within two years of appellate mandate, thus timely | Motion was timely as filed within two years of mandate; lower court’s timeliness error harmless because denial otherwise proper |
| Cognizability of trial-court-error claims in 3.850 | Appellant sought relief based on alleged trial court errors during VOP proceeding | State argued trial-court errors are not cognizable in rule 3.850 postconviction motions | Claims based on trial-court error are not cognizable under rule 3.850; those three grounds fail |
| Ineffective assistance for not delaying VOP hearing until new criminal case resolved | Counsel should have objected to proceeding with VOP trial before resolution of new criminal case | No right to insist on order of hearings; scheduling is trial court discretion | Claim meritless: counsel not ineffective because defendant has no right to sequencing of cases |
| Appropriateness of summary denial under tipsy coachman | Appellant challenged summary denial and sought remand for merits | State contended denial was proper on merits despite erroneous reasoning | Under tipsy coachman, appellate court affirmed because record supports denial on correct legal grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Boatwright v. State, 222 So.3d 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (affirming judgment and sentence on direct appeal)
- Hall v. State, 86 So.3d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (timeliness of postconviction filing measured from appellate mandate)
- Rosado v. State, 654 So.2d 623 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (same)
- Miller v. State, 829 So.2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (affirming summary denial under tipsy coachman)
- Swanson v. State, 984 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (trial-court error claims not cognizable in rule 3.850)
- Hodges v. State, 885 So.2d 338 (Fla. 2004) (limits on proper claims in postconviction relief)
- Gorham v. State, 521 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 1988) (same)
- Lister v. State, 925 So.2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (no right to insist on order of proceedings; trial court discretion)