Opinion ID: 2772305
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: “Tipsy Coachman” Doctrine

Text: The trial court denied Marquardt’s motion to suppress based on collateral estoppel and relied on Echols only as a secondary basis for the denial of the motion 9. Additionally, a Wisconsin Court of Appeals considered the good faith issue in an unpublished opinion that affirmed the denial of a postconviction motion filed by Marquardt. State v. Marquardt, 776 N.W.2d 288, 2009 WL 3273234, at -5 (Wis. App. Oct. 14, 2009) (unpublished opinion). The Wisconsin Court of Appeals determined that the statements in the warrant affidavit were accurate and concluded that the record did not support the allegation that the affiant intended to mislead the magistrate. Id. at . The Wisconsin appellate court concluded that no Franks violation occurred. Id. - 27 - for reconsideration. Marquardt alleges that collateral estoppel does not apply. We agree, although we nevertheless conclude that he is not entitled to relief on this claim. Collateral estoppel applies when identical parties or their privies have previously litigated the same issue. State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 290-91 (Fla. 2003) (citing Gentile v. Bauder, 718 So. 2d 781, 783 (Fla. 1998)). Collateral estoppel requires that: (1) the identical issue was presented in a prior proceeding; (2) the issue was a critical and necessary part of the prior determination; (3) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue; (4) the parties to the prior action were identical to the parties of the current proceeding; and (5) the issue was actually litigated. Cook v. State, 921 So. 2d 631, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). The parties in this case are the State of Florida and Marquardt. However, the parties in the Wisconsin case were the State of Wisconsin and Marquardt. Thus, identity of the parties is lacking, and collateral estoppel does not apply. Under the “tipsy coachman” doctrine, however, a trial court ruling that is based on improper reasoning will be upheld if there is any basis in the record to support the ruling. See State v. Hankerson, 65 So. 3d 502, 505 (Fla. 2011) (citing Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 644 (Fla. 1999)). Thus, if the trial court reached the correct result based on the wrong reason, the ruling may be affirmed. Here, the record supports the conclusion that the evidence - 28 - was admissible pursuant to Echols, an additional basis asserted by the trial court for its denial of the motion for reconsideration. Thus, the trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress, and we affirm this ruling.