final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion
under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Linda F.
Thomas, Public Defender, and M. J. Lord, Assistant Public
Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant
Attorney General, for Appellee.
defendant raises four issues in this direct appeal of his
judgment and sentence. We affirm and write only to address
the defendant's argument that the trial court erred in
disallowing his use of a peremptory challenge.
jury selection, after defense counsel used a peremptory
challenge on prospective juror 14, the prosecutor asked for a
"race neutral reason" because "the defense has
used a strike on all four males that have been available for
the panel." In response, defense counsel stated:
my client indicated that he got a bad feeling from that
person and . . . he asked me to strike that person based on
the fact that I didn't as well have any thoughts
regarding that he would be positive for us. I felt like that
would be an appropriate strike, but it was initiated by my
after the trial court stated-without objection from defense
counsel-that "the bottom line is there is no reason
other than [defense counsel's] client doesn't want
him, " the prosecutor argued:
I don't think that the case law supports a person saying
I have a bad feeling. The state certainly couldn't get
away with that, and so I do not believe that would be a valid
basis for a strike, and so . . . I would make my objection
based upon the lack of reason provided.
trial court agreed with the prosecutor and disallowed the
challenge. As a result, prospective juror 14 served on the
jury that convicted the defendant.
review the trial court's ruling on whether to allow a
peremptory challenge for clear error. See Melbourne v.