Case Name: James HICKMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2018-12-26
Citations: 260 So. 3d 553
Docket Number: No. 3D17-1415
Parties: James HICKMAN, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and LOGUE, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 260
Pages: 553–553

Head Matter:
James HICKMAN, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D17-1415
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Opinion filed December 26, 2018.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael W. Mervine, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and LOGUE, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Alonzo v. State, 46 So.3d 1081, 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (explaining that a trial court's genuineness analysis, under Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1996), may be implicit); Carillo v. State, 962 So.2d 1013, 1016 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (holding that "the trial court implicitly underwent a genuineness inquiry and found the State's proffered reason to be non-pre-textual"); Pringle v. State, 792 So.2d 533, 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (observing that, in the Melbourne context, "no magic words or incantations are required, and that substance must control over form. The trial court's quest is not to create a perfect script, but to assure that peremptory challenges are not used to exclude persons from jury service for improper reasons").