EDWIN SOTO, 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.
Edwin Soto appealed his burglary conviction challenging the state's use of a peremptory strike against a Hispanic juror. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that because Soto's counsel failed to object to the state's race-neutral explanation during trial, the issue was not properly preserved for appeal.
The court affirmed, holding that appellant failed to preserve the issue for review by not objecting to the state's race-neutral explanation during trial. Even if the transcript suggests the juror understood English well, the failure to challenge the state's factual assertion at trial was fatal to the appeal.
[1] A defendant must object to the factual basis of a prosecutor's race-neutral reason for striking a juror to preserve the issue for appeal.
[2] A trial court is not required to independently verify the factual basis of a prosecutor's race-neutral reason for striking a juror when the defense remains silent.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is the state's obligation to advance a facially race-neutral reason that is supported in the record. If the explanation is challenged by opposing counsel, the trial court must review the record to establish record support for the reason advanced.”
Establishes the framework for evaluating peremptory strikes and the state's burden to provide race-neutral reasons.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring jury selection in a burglary case, the state used a peremptory challenge to strike a Hispanic juror. The state explained the strike was based o…
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 Batson Challenge cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
We affirm appellant’s conviction for burglary of a dwelling, addressing one issue: whether the court erred in allowing the state to strike a Hispanic juror in the absence of a race-neutral reason.
The state’s explanation for striking the juror was that the juror did not appear to speak or understand English very well. The trial court found that to be a race-neutral reason and appellant made no further objection. On appeal appellant argues that the transcript of voir dire refutes the state’s explanation about this juror speaking or understanding English. We cannot, on this record, agree.
As the Florida Supreme' Court explained in Floyd v. State, 569 So. 2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fla.1990):
It is the state’s obligation to advance a facially race-neutral reason that is supported in the record. If the explanation is challenged by opposing counsel, the trial court must review the record to establish record support for the reason advanced. However, when the state asserts a fact as existing in the record, the trial court cannot be faulted for assuming it is so when defense counsel is silent and the assertion remains unchallenged. Once the state has proffered a facially race-neutral reason, a defendant must place the court on notice that he or she contests the factual existence of the reason. Here, the error was easily correctable. Had defense counsel disputed the state’s statement, the court would have been compelled to ascertain from the record if the state’s assertion was true. Had the court determined that there was no factual basis for the challenge, the state’s explanation no longer could have been considered a race-neutral explanation, and Juror Edmonds could not have been peremptorily excused. Because defense counsel failed to object to the prosecutor’s explanation, the Neil issue was not properly preserved for review.
As in Floyd, appellant in this ease failed, in the trial court, to take issue with the state’s explanation. If appellant had done so, the question of whether this juror had a language problem could have been cleared up. The transcript alone is insufficient to resolve the issue. Appellant has, accordingly, failed to demonstrate error. We have considered the other issue raised by appellant and find it to be without merit. Affirmed.
STONE and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Darryle Riggins v. State, 942 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…e Mendoza v. State, 807 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (holding that argument as to peremptory strike not preserved “where the defense did not object to the existence of the facts proffered by the state in support of the strike”); Soto v. State, 786 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), case dismissed, 799 So. 2d 219 (Fla.2001); Carter v. State, 762 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), review denied, 786 So. 2d 1183 (Fla.2001); see also Dorsey, 868 So. 2d at 1196 n. 3; cf. Suri v. State, 937 So. 2d 216, 219 (Fla. 3d…
Authorities Cited
- Floyd v. State, 569 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1990)