Opinion ID: 1621175
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: failure to challenge the trial court's denial of a cause challenge and additional peremptory challenges

Text: Holland also claims his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the trial court's denial of a cause challenge to a juror based on the juror's racial prejudice and for denial of adequate peremptory challenges. We deny this argument because Holland has failed to establish that his counsel acted deficiently or that this deficiency prejudiced him. Holland has failed to establish that his appellate counsel acted deficiently because the argument he claims counsel should have made is without merit. It is well settled that the trial judge has discretion to grant or deny additional peremptory challenges. Parker v. State, 456 So.2d 436, 442 (Fla.1984); see Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.350(e). In Holland's case, the trial judge used his discretion to initially grant both sides twelve peremptory challenges  two more than the statutory requirement. He later granted each side two more peremptory challenges. The trial judge also dismissed the challenged venire member for cause. Therefore, not only is Holland unable to establish that the trial court abused its discretion, but he also is unable to point to any objectionable juror who served. He has not established error. See Trotter v. State, 576 So.2d 691, 693 (Fla.1990) (requiring a defendant to identify a specific juror who actually sat on the jury and whom the defendant either challenged for cause or attempted to challenge peremptorily or otherwise objected to after his peremptory challenges had been exhausted); see also Busby v. State, 894 So.2d 88, 96-97 (Fla.2004) (requiring a defendant to show that an objectionable juror has served on the jury before finding a defendant was prejudiced by the trial court's decision not to authorize an additional peremptory challenge), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2976, 162 L.Ed.2d 906 (2005).