MICHAEL JAMES PONDER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Michael James Ponder appeals his convictions for attempted first-degree murder and attempted robbery in one case, and attempted second-degree murder in another. The court reverses the first case due to the state's failure to provide gender-neutral reasons for striking women from the jury, and reverses the sentencing in the second case as exceeding statutory limits.
The court reversed the judgment in case 92-1162 because the state failed to rebut the objection to striking a female juror with a gender-neutral reason, violating equal protection rights. The court affirmed the conviction in case 92-0770 but reversed the sentence as exceeding the fifteen-year statutory maximum for attempted second-degree murder, remanding for resentencing.
[1] A state fails to rebut a claim of discrimination in jury selection by merely affirming its good faith or denying discriminatory intent.
[2] The exclusion of a prospective juror based on gender without a gender-neutral explanation violates the defendant's and the prospective juror's right to equal protection.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The state cannot rebut a claim of discrimination merely by affirming its good faith or by denying discriminatory intent.”
Establishes the standard for evaluating peremptory challenge discrimination; good faith alone is insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePonder was convicted after jury trial of two counts of attempted first-degree murder with a firearm and three counts of attempted robbery with a firea…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attempted Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
Michael James Ponder files a consolidated appeal from lower court case numbers 92-1162 and 92-0770. We reverse the judgments in case number 92-1162, because the state failed to rebut objections to its peremptory challenges to women on the venire. We affirm the judgment in case number 92-0770, but reverse the sentence because it exceeded the maximum permitted by law.
The appellant was convicted after jury trial in case number 92-1162 of two counts of attempted first-degree murder with a firearm and three counts of attempted robbery with a firearm.1 During voir dire, the state struck seven women from the venire over objections by the defense. Although the state was able to rebut the objections with gender-neutral reasons in most of the cases, the state failed to give a sufficient reason for striking one of the women jurors. The following dialogue took place after the defense’s objection to the juror in question:
THE COURT: You’re not systematically excluding all the women?
THE STATE: We’re women, Judge. Why do that? We never want women off the jury. There’s nothing in the law about gender. The jury which was finally impanelled consisted of six men. Two alternates were chosen afterward, one of which was a woman.
The state cannot rebut a claim of discrimination merely by affirming its good faith or by denying discriminatory intent. See State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18, 22 (Fla.1988). The exclusion of women from the jury without a gender-neutral explanation violates the appellant’s and the prospective juror’s right to equal protection and requires that we reverse and remand for a new trial. See Abshire v. State, 642 So. 2d 542, 544 (Fla.1994).2 Although the trial court did conduct a Neil3 inquiry, the court erred in permitting a strike where the state failed to provide a gender-neutral reason for excluding one of the women.
In case number 92-0770, the appellant was tried and convicted of attempted second-degree murder. Although attempted second-degree murder is a second-degree felony punishable by a maximum of fifteen years in prison, the trial court sentenced the appellant to twenty-five years in prison concurrent to the sentences in case number 92-1162 above. The state concedes the sentencing error. §§ 782.04(2); 777.04(4)(d), and 775.082(3)(c), Fla.Stat. (1991).
We therefore reverse the judgments in case number 92-1162 and remand for a new trial. We affirm the judgment in ease number 92-0770, reverse the sentence, and remand for resentencing.
Reversed; affirmed in part and remanded for resentencing.
RYDER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur. . §§ 782.04(l)(a), 812.13(l)(2)(a), . and 777.04(4)(c) and (d), Fla.Stat. (1991).
. After the trial in this case but during the appeal, the Supreme Court extended the Equal Protection Clause to gender-based peremptory challenges. J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., - U.S.-, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994); see also Abshire v. State, 642 So. 2d 542 (Fla.1994); J.H.C. v. State, 642 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
.State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1988)
- J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 (U.S. 1994)
- Abshire v. State, 642 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1994)
- J.H.C. v. State, 642 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)