MICHAEL ANTHONY MORRISON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court affirmed Morrison's convictions, rejecting his claims that the State exercised a race-based peremptory challenge and that identification evidence was legally insufficient, finding both issues were not properly preserved for appeal and, alternatively, were meritorious on the merits.
A defendant's objection to a peremptory challenge on race-based grounds is waived if not renewed at the conclusion of jury selection, and identification evidence is legally sufficient when the trial court accepts the State's race-neutral reason for the challenge.
[1] A defendant's objection to a peremptory challenge based on race must be renewed at the conclusion of jury selection to be preserved for appellate review.
[2] Identification evidence is legally sufficient when the trial court accepts the State's race-neutral explanation for a peremptory challenge.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Anthony Morrison was convicted of multiple crimes. During jury selection, the State exercised a peremptory challenge, and Morrison raised a ra…
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 Appeal Of Criminal Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael Anthony Morrison appeals his convictions of multiple crimes. We reject his claim that the State exercised a race-based peremptory challenge because (1) this objection was not renewed at the conclusion of jury selection. See Joiner v. State, 618 So. 2d 174, 176 (Fla.1993); Portela v. State, 661 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Cruz v. State, 660 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); see also Milstein v. Mutual Security Life Ins. Co., 705 So. 2d 639, 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).(2) The argument defendant-appellant now advances on appeal was not presented to the trial judge. See Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So. 2d 784, 788 (Fla.1992); Davis v. State, 691 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).(3) Assuming the point had been properly preserved for appellate review, the State gave a race-neutral reason for excusing the juror, which was accepted by the trial court. See Fotopoulos, 608 So. 2d at 788.
We reject the defendant’s claim that the identification evidence was legally insufficient to convict him. (1) This point was not preserved for appellate review because the defendant did not include this ground in the motion for judgment of acquittal. See Johnson v. State, 478 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).(2) Assuming that the point had been preserved for appellate review, the evidence was in fact legally sufficient and the weight of the evidence was for the jury to consider. See Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla.1974).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Symonette v. State, 778 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…d properly be viewed with some measure of skepticism by the trial judge in determining the genuineness of the proffered reason. Nevertheless, defendant did not make this argument to the lower court and it was therefore waived. See Morrison v. State, 731 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So. 2d 784, 788 [*503] (Fla.1992); Davis v. State, 691 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Even if the issue had been properly preserved, there are circumstances where a prior experience as the victim of a c…
-
Morrison v. State, 932 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…2d 435 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 961, 125 S.Ct. 21, [*534] 159 L.Ed.2d 851 (2004). The trial court correctly denied that claim. The defendant’s convictions and sentences became final on direct appeal in 1999. See Morrison v. State, 731 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The decisions in Apprendi and Blakely are not retroactive. See Hughes v. State, 901 So. 2d 837, 838 (Fla.2005); Reed v. State, 898 So. 2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). The more substantial issue is the defendant’s claim to enti…
Authorities Cited
- Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1974)
- Joiner v. State, 618 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1993)
- Konstantinos X. Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1992)
- Davis v. State, 691 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Darrel Michael Abbott v. State, 478 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Milstein v. Mut. Sec. Life Ins. Co., 705 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Portela v. State, 661 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Cruz v. State, 660 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)