HAAR v. STATE (2021)

Robert S. Haar appeals the postconviction court's denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct what he contends is an illegal and unconstitutional sentence of life imprisonment. We affirm the order.

Haar's sole argument for relief is that his sentence of life in prison violates article I, section 17 of the Florida Constitution, which forbids an indefinite term of imprisonment. The Florida Supreme Court has specifically rejected this argument. See Ratliff v. State, 914 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 2005) (holding that a sentence of life imprisonment does not violate article I, section 17 of the Florida Constitution).¹

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We acknowledge that the postconviction court's reasoning for denying Haar's motion did not directly address his argument raised. Because the court nevertheless reached the right result, we affirm under the “Tipsy Coachman” doctrine, which “allows an appellate court to affirm a lower court's decision that reaches the right result, but for the wrong reason, so long as there is any basis in the record to affirm the judgment or order.” See Adams v. State, 289 So. 3d 958, 959 & n.2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (applying Tipsy Coachman to affirm order denying rule 3.800(a) motion).

PER CURIAM.

LAMBERT, C.J., NARDELLA and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.