Hickman v. State

Full title: James Hickman, Appellant, v. The State of Florida, Appellee.

Court: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Date published: Dec 26, 2018

260 So. 3d 553 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)

Opinion

No. 3D17-1415

12-26-2018

James HICKMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael W. Mervine, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael W. Mervine, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Alonzo v. State, 46 So.3d 1081, 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (explaining that a trial court's genuineness analysis, under Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1996), may be implicit); Carillo v. State, 962 So.2d 1013, 1016 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (holding that "the trial court implicitly underwent a genuineness inquiry and found the State's proffered reason to be non-pre-textual"); Pringle v. State, 792 So.2d 533, 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (observing that, in the Melbourne context, "no magic words or incantations are required, and that substance must control over form. The trial court's quest is not to create a perfect script, but to assure that peremptory challenges are not used to exclude persons from jury service for improper reasons").