Mendoza v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mendoza v. State

807 So. 2d 734, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1408, 2002 WL 215031

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 13, 2002

DocketNo. 3D01-1241

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 807 So. 2d 734 (Mendoza 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

Mendoza v. State, 807 So. 2d 734, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1408, 2002 WL 215031 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Lazaro Mendoza appeals his conviction and sentence for grand theft of a motor vehicle entered pursuant to a jury verdict. His only point on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the state to peremptorily strike a prospective juror where the state’s gender neutral reason for the strike was not supported by the record and therefore was not genuine. The record reflects, however, that this argument was not preserved for appellate review where the defense did not object to the existence of the facts proffered by the state in support of the strike. See Floyd v. State, 569 So.2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fla.1990); Carter v. State, 762 So.2d 1024, 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), rev. denied, 786 So.2d 1183 (Fla.2001). For that reason, we affirm the appellant’s conviction and sentence.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Lazaro Mendoza appeals his conviction and sentence for grand theft of a motor vehicle entered pursuant to a jury verdict. His only point on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the state to peremptorily strike a prospective juror where the state’s gender neutral reason for the strike was not supported by the record and therefore was not genuine. The record reflects, however, that this argument was not preserved for appellate review where the defense did not object to the existence of the facts proffered by the state in support of the strike. See Floyd v. State, 569 So.2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fla.1990); Carter v. State, 762 So.2d 1024, 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), rev. denied, 786 So.2d 1183 (Fla.2001). For that reason, we affirm the appellant’s conviction and sentence.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

807 So. 2d 734, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1408, 2002 WL 215031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendoza-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack