REIGHN v. STATE (2002)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,First District.

Steacyanne REIGHN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D02-984.

Decided: November 14, 2002

Steacyanne Reighn, pro se. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, James W. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Appellant, Steacyanne Reighn, appeals the trial court's order summarily denying her postconviction motion as successive under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, contending that she instead filed it pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. Although the trial court erred by treating Reighn's petition as having been filed under rule 3.850, we nevertheless affirm, because the motion was barred by section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2002).

Section 925.11(1)(a) provides that a defendant may file a postsentence motion requesting DNA testing if the defendant “has been tried and found guilty of committing a crime,” whereas Reighn pled nolo contendere before trial. We therefore affirm the trial court's summary denial as right, but for the wrong reason. See Howard v. State, 462 So.2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (observing that even if the trial court denies relief based upon an incorrect principle, the appellate court will affirm if the right result was obtained); State v. R.M., 696 So.2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM.

ERVIN, BARFIELD and WOLF, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network