# State of Florida v. Alex Diaz de la Portilla

> Supreme Court of Florida · November 5, 2015 · 40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 626

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9820030

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Alex DIAZ DE LA PORTILLA, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Florida
- **Decided:** November 5, 2015
- **Citations:** 40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 626; 177 So. 3d 965; 2015 Fla. LEXIS 2465; 2015 WL 6749921
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Canady
- **Judges:** Lewis, Labarga, Pariente, Quince, Polston, Perry, Canady
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9820030

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that the procedural rules governing indirect criminal contempt reflect the required "procedural due process safeguards"
- describing the “tipsy coach doctrine” which permits a reviewing court to affirm the decision of a lower court that reaches the right result for the wrong reason
- describing “the tipsy coachman doctrine” permitting a reviewing court to affirm the decision of a lower court that reaches the right result for the wrong reason

## Opinion text

CANADY, J.,
dissenting.
In the decision on review, the First District reversed the trial court’s order finding the respondent to be in direct criminal contempt. In the proceedings before this Court, the State has not sought to overturn the district court’s reversal of the trial court’s order. Instead, the State has sought an advisory opinion on the certified question. This Court should not be in the business of issuing advisory opinions except as specifically authorized by the Florida Constitution. “It is the rule that before a person may bring an appeal he must be a party or privy to the record and must show that he is, or will be, injuriously affected by the order sought to be reviewed.” King v. Brown, 55 So.2d 187, 188 (Fla.1951). Accordingly, this case should be dismissed. I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9820030. Public record. Not legal advice.