Guzman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Guzman v. State

66 So. 3d 1023, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11074, 2011 WL 2732586

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 15, 2011

Docket2D10-1635

StatusPublished

This text of 66 So. 3d 1023 (Guzman v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Guzman v. State, 66 So. 3d 1023, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11074, 2011 WL 2732586 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

SILBERMAN, Chief Judge.

Frank Guzman seeks review of his judgment and sentences for lewd or lascivious molestation and lewd or lascivious exhibition. We reject Guzman’s argument that the trial court erred in sustaining the State’s objection to the defense peremptory challenge to a female juror. The court’s determination that the defense explanation for the peremptory challenge was a pretext was not clearly erroneous. See Jeffries v. State, 797 So.2d 573, 580 (Fla.2001); Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d *1024 759, 764-65 (Fla.1996). We accept the State’s concession that the judgment must be corrected to set forth the statute number for the offense of conviction on count two. See Ellis v. State, 855 So.2d 101, 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We therefore affirm Guzman’s convictions and sentences but remand for correction of his written judgment. Guzman need not be present for this correction. See id.

Convictions and sentences affirmed; remanded for correction of the written judgment.

LaROSE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SILBERMAN, Chief Judge.

Frank Guzman seeks review of his judgment and sentences for lewd or lascivious molestation and lewd or lascivious exhibition. We reject Guzman’s argument that the trial court erred in sustaining the State’s objection to the defense peremptory challenge to a female juror. The court’s determination that the defense explanation for the peremptory challenge was a pretext was not clearly erroneous. See Jeffries v. State, 797 So.2d 573, 580 (Fla.2001); Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d *1024 759, 764-65 (Fla.1996). We accept the State’s concession that the judgment must be corrected to set forth the statute number for the offense of conviction on count two. See Ellis v. State, 855 So.2d 101, 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We therefore affirm Guzman’s convictions and sentences but remand for correction of his written judgment. Guzman need not be present for this correction. See id.

Convictions and sentences affirmed; remanded for correction of the written judgment.

LaROSE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 So. 3d 1023, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11074, 2011 WL 2732586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guzman-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack