DEWAYNE WARREN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a peremptory strike when it finds the defendant's race-neutral explanation lacks credible genuineness, particularly where the defendant accepted another juror expressing essentially the same concerns.
[1] In reviewing a trial court's denial of a peremptory strike, the appellate court focuses on whether the trial court's credibility determination regarding the genuineness o…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 court's focus . . . is not on the reasonableness of the explanation but rather its genuineness. . . . Accordingly, . . . the trial court's decision turns primarily on an assessment of credibility and will be affirmed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.”
Court citing Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759, 764–65 (Fla. 1996) to establish the standard for reviewing peremptory strike denials
Dewayne Warren sought to use a peremptory strike to remove a juror and provided a race-neutral explanation. However, Warren agreed to seat another jur…
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 Peremptory Strike cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 2, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-2022 Lower Tribunal No. F17-7937B ________________
Dewayne Warren, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Teresa Pooler, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2 In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Appellant’s use of a peremptory strike to remove a juror where the trial court found Appellant’s race-neutral explanation was not credibly genuine after Appellant agreed to the sitting of another juror who expressed essentially the same concerns that formed the basis of the race-neutral explanation. We decline to hold that the trial court abused its discretion in this regard. See Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759, 764–65 (Fla. 1996) (“The court’s focus . . . is not on the reasonableness of the explanation but rather its genuineness. . . . Accordingly, . . . the trial court’s decision turns primarily on an assessment of credibility and will be affirmed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.” (footnotes omitted)).
Affirmed.