MPAKA v. STATE (2026)

Affirmed. See Craven v. State, 310 So. 3d 891, 899 (Fla. 2020) (“Under Florida law, a party's use of peremptory challenges is limited only by the rule that the challenges may not be used to exclude members of a ‘distinctive group,’ such as race.”) (quoting San Martin v. State, 705 So. 2d 1337, 1343 (Fla. 1997)) (additional citations omitted); Brannon v. State, 320 So. 3d 898, 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“The factors relevant to the trial court's genuineness inquiry include the ‘racial make-up of the venire, prior strikes exercised against the same ․ racial group, or singling out the juror for special treatment.’ ” (quoting Norona v. State, 137 So. 3d 1096, 1097-97 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)); see also Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759, 764-65 (Fla. 1996) (holding that the trial court's ultimate determination of genuineness—whether the proffered reason for the strike was a pretext—turns primarily on an assessment of credibility, therefore implicating the abuse of discretion standard, and will be affirmed on appeal unless there is no record support for the trial court's finding.).

PER CURIAM.