Bernard Ramkelawan v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2014 BERNARD RAMKELAWAN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D14-608 [November 19, 2014] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Lisa M. Porter, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 06022759CF10A and 07001951CF10A. Bernard Ramkelawan, South Bay, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mark J. Hamel, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. 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 postconviction 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. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.