Florence v. State

Full title: Ladonna Florence, Appellant, v. The State of Florida, Appellee.

Court: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Date published: Mar 10, 2021

317 So. 3d 242 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)

Opinion

No. 3D19-2465

03-10-2021

Ladonna FLORENCE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Siegel v. State, 68 So. 3d 281, 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) ("A trial court's rulings on the propriety of peremptory challenges are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard."); Washington v. State, 773 So. 2d 1202, 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (recognizing that "a juror's unfriendly or hostile tone while answering questions" is a facially race neutral reason for the exercise of a peremptory strike because it is not based on race); see also Infantes v. State, 941 So. 2d 432, 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the State to pose unrelated hypothetical scenarios to the prospective jurors to determine whether the prospective jurors could correctly apply the law).