Case Name: David ROLLINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-01-29
Citations: 462 So. 2d 610
Docket Number: No. 80-1039
Parties: David ROLLINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before BASKIN, DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 462
Pages: 610–610

Head Matter:
David ROLLINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 80-1039.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan. 29, 1985.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Paul Morris, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Calvin L. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BASKIN, DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This appeal presents the same issue as that framed in Neil v. State, 433 So.2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), wherein this court certified to the Supreme Court of Florida the following question of great public importance:
Absent the criteria established in Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965), may a party be required to state the basis for the exercise of a peremptory challenge?
The certified question has been resolved in State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla.1984). Applying to this record the test announced by the Florida supreme court, we conclude that no reversible error has been demonstrated.
We have considered the other issues raised by the appellant and find them to be without merit.
The convictions and sentences entered thereon are accordingly affirmed.