JOSE VASQUEZ A/K/A JOSE VAZQUEZ, 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.
Jose Vasquez appeals his convictions for grand theft and obtaining a vehicle with intent to defraud arising from the fraudulent purchase of a Chevrolet Tahoe using an assumed identity. The court reverses and remands for a new trial due to the trial court's failure to conduct a proper inquiry into the prosecutor's peremptory challenge of a Hispanic juror, which constitutes reversible error under Florida law.
The trial court committed reversible error by failing to conduct a Neil inquiry into the prosecutor's peremptory strike of a minority juror without requiring a race-neutral explanation. The trial court's reliance on the absence of a demonstrated pattern of discrimination was error because no such pattern need be shown to trigger the inquiry requirement. Additionally, concurrent convictions for grand theft and obtaining a vehicle with intent to defraud based on the same transaction are prohibited under Florida Statutes section 775.021(4)(b).
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by failing to conduct a Neil inquiry when a defendant objects to the State's peremptory strike of a potential juror and identifies…
[2] A pattern of discriminatory strikes is not required to trigger a trial court's duty to conduct an inquiry into the State's reasons for excusing a minority venire member.
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 trial court committed reversible error in failing to conduct a Neil inquiry regarding the peremptory strike of Valdez. Under State v. Johans, 613 So.2d 1319 (Fla.1993), and Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759 (Fla.1996), the defense properly put the strike of Valdez at issue, and the trial court was required to ask the prosecutor his reason for the strike.”
Establishes the core reversible error: failure to conduct a race-neutral basis inquiry when a minority juror is peremptorily challenged.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVasquez and Rebecca Matchette purchased a $27,000 Chevrolet Tahoe from Bob Taylor Chevrolet on December 5, 1994, by financing through First National B…
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 Neil Inquiry cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Jose Vasquez appeals from his judgment and sentence for grand theft and obtaining a vehicle with intent to defraud. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
The State charged Vasquez with committing grand theft, in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1993), and obtaining a vehicle with intent to defraud, in violation of section 817.52, Florida Statutes (1993).
The charges resulted from Vasquez and Rebecca Matchette purchasing a Chevrolet Tahoe worth approximately $27,000 from Bob Taylor Chevrolet on December 5, 1994. To obtain financing through First National Bank of Naples, Vasquez produced a driver’s license with his picture and the name Jose Avila and signed a credit application and notice to co-signor form with the name Jose Avila. Matchette signed two checks totaling $2,900 with the name Rebecca Vasquez for the down payment on the Tahoe. After the sale was completed, the salesman, as he did with all his customers, took a photograph of Vasquez and Matchette in front of their new Tahoe.
Upon deposit, the checks were returned for insufficient funds. By early February 1995, no payments had been made on the loan. At that time, First National decided to repossess the vehicle because it had learned that Vasquez was not Jose Avila. The salesman identified Vasquez as being the man in the photograph who identified himself as Jose Avila during the sale of the Tahoe.
On April 9, 1996, the case went to trial. During jury selection, the State exercised a peremptory challenge against potential juror Elizabeth Valdez. Defense counsel objected to the strike, identified Valdez as the only Hispanic person on the panel, and asked that the court have the prosecutor provide a race-neutral reason for the strike. Instead, the prosecutor convinced the trial court that, because he did not have a pattern, he did not need a reason. The prosecutor then volunteered that he “didn’t get a good feel for” Valdez. The court allowed the State to strike Valdez without requiring any explanation. After the jury was sworn in, Vasquez objected to the panel.
The trial court committed reversible error in failing to conduct a Neil1 inquiry regarding the peremptory strike of Valdez. Under State v. Johans, 613 So. 2d 1319 (Fla.1993), and Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1996), the defense properly put the strike of Valdez at issue, and the trial court was required to ask the prosecutor his reason for the strike.
The trial court overruled the objection to the strike on the basis that it “didn’t find a pattern.” Vasquez correctly contends that this was error because it is unnecessary to prove a pattern of discrimination. See Bowden v. State, 588 So. 2d 225, 228 (Fla.1991) (stating that “pattern of striking black venire members need not be demonstrated before a trial court’s duty to conduct an inquiry into the State’s reasons for the excusal of the minority member is triggered”). The failure to conduct a Neil inquiry is reversible error requiring remand for a new trial. See Johans, 613 So. 2d at 1322.
Thus, we reverse Vasquez’s convictions for grand theft and obtaining a vehicle with intent to defraud and remand for a new trial.
We also agree with Vasquez’s argument that concurrent convictions are prohibited for grand theft of the Tahoe and obtaining the Tahoe with intent to defraud based on the same transaction. See State v. Thompson, 607 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1992), adopting, 585 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 5th DCA1991) (holding that section 775.021(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), barred concurrent prosecution for fraudulent sale of a counterfeit controlled substance and felony petit theft based on the same transaction); State v. McDonald, 690 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA) (holding that section 775.021(4)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1993), prohibited conviction for fraud by person authorized to provide goods or services and grand theft based on the same facts), review denied, 698 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1997).
Thus, on remand, the State may proceed on only one of the charges.
Reversed and remanded.
QUINCE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur. . State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitby v. State, 933 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…lub of Little Havana v. de Kalafe, 723 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Greene v. State, 718 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Randall v. State, 718 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Overstreet v. State, 712 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Vasquez v. State, 711 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Archie v. State, 710 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Murphy v. State, 708 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Dean v. State, 703 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Daniel v. State, 697 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Hernandez v. State, 6…
-
State v. Whitby, 975 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2008)…Kiwanis Club of Little Havana, Inc. v. de Kalafe, 723 So. 2d 838, 841-42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (finding that trial court failed to conduct a Neil inquiry and require that the striking party offer a race-neutral reason for the strike); Vasquez v. State, 711 So. 2d 1305, 1306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (same); Archie v. State, 710 So. 2d 234, 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (finding that the State, as party opposing strike, failed to show challenged person is member of a distinct racial group); Murphy v. State, 708 So. 2d 612, 614…
-
Carrillo v. State, 962 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…d for a new trial. See [State v.] Johans, 613 So. 2d [1319,] at 1322 [(Fla.1993)](holding that "the proper remedy in all cases where the trial court errs in failing to hold a Neil inquiry is to reverse and remand for a new trial”); Vasquez v. State, 711 So. 2d 1305, 1306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (finding that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to conduct a Neil inquiry where the defendant had properly put the strike of a juror at issue).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984)
- Jeanie H. Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996)
- State v. Johans, 613 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 1993)
- Bowden v. State, 588 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1991)
- State v. Thompson, 607 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1992)
- Thompson v. State, 585 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- State v. McDONALD, 690 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)