Title: State v. Fox

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

587 So. 2d 464 (1991)
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Timothy Lee FOX, Respondent.
No. 77624.

Supreme Court of Florida.
October 10, 1991.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Joan Fowler, Bureau Chief, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., and Melynda Melear, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Jeffrey Anderson, Asst. Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, for respondent.
BARKETT, Justice.
We review Fox v. State, 573 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), based on asserted conflict with Floyd v. State, 569 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S. Ct. 2912, 115 L. Ed. 2d 1075 (1991).[*]
Fox was charged by information with robbery. During jury selection, the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge to strike a black juror. Fox made a timely objection to the challenge on the basis of State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984), clarified, State v. Castillo, 486 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1986), stating that the prospective juror, Mr. Williams, was one of only two prospective black jurors out of a panel of thirty. The trial court asked the prosecutor to give reasons for striking the black juror, and the prosecutor replied, "Because the testimony I believe was he was on jury duty and there was a hung jury, and he couldn't make a decision. I don't want a juror that can't make a decision." The judge overruled the defense's objection, finding the prosecutor's explanation was race-neutral. Fox did not contest the adequacy of the explanation or its record support. The jury ultimately chosen found Fox guilty of the robbery charge. On appeal, the district court reversed Fox's conviction, stating:
573 So. 2d  at 963.
In Floyd v. State, 569 So. 2d  at 1229-30, this Court held:
In the instant case, defense counsel did not contest the State's factual assertion. The district court thus erred in reversing Fox's conviction as the issue had not been preserved for appellate review.
Accordingly, we quash the opinion below and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
[*]  We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.