Case ID: so3d_153/html/0294-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KHOUZAM, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel SAWYER, Appellant, v. Dennis Edward BOOTHE, Vincen A. Boothe, Rebecca Boothe, Elaine Danielle Boothe, Vanesse Boothe, Appellees.
    No. 2D13-6117.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Oct. 1, 2014.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 30, 2014.
    Daniel Sawyer, pro se.
    Albert C. Penson and Stephanie R. Hayes of Penson Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellees.
   KHOUZAM, Judge.

Daniel Sawyer appeals an order dismissing with prejudice his complaint in which he alleged that the attorney who represented him at a criminal trial committed legal malpractice. Although the trial court erred when it dismissed the complaint based on the statute of limitations, we nevertheless affirm the dismissal with prejudice because it is apparent the complaint cannot be amended to state a cause of action. See Samuels v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale, 782 So.2d 489, 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“If a complaint does not state a cause of action, the opportunity to amend a complaint should be liberally given, unless it is apparent the pleading cannot be amended to state a cause of action.”).

For his legal malpractice claim to be successful, Sawyer needed to prove that he had obtained postconviction relief and that he was actually innocent. See Cira v. Dillinger, 903 So.2d 367, 370-71 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Attached to the complaint was a postconviction order vacating Sawyer’s sentence and allowing him to plead guilty. The stated basis for the postconviction relief was Sawyer’s testimony that he was guilty and would have pleaded guilty had his attorney conveyed a plea offer to him. Therefore, in establishing the “exoneration” element of his legal malpractice claim, Sawyer has negated the “innocence” element and he cannot state a cause of action. Because the trial court reached the correct result, albeit for the wrong reasons, we affirm. See Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901, 906 (Fla.2002).

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.