JOHNSON v. STATE (2020)

ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

In Johnson v. State (Johnson I), 268 So. 3d 729, 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), a divided panel of this Court reversed Geovani Johnson's convictions and sentences. The panel majority stated that “[t]he ultimate question we answer in this case is whether the Melbourne [v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996)] procedure is always a three-step process, or a three-step process if requested.” Johnson I, 268 So. 3d at 731. “We determine[d] that the Melbourne procedure is indeed always a three-step process,” id., and concluded “the trial court failed to comply with the duty imposed by Step 3 of the Melbourne procedure,” id. at 743.

The Florida Supreme Court quashed our decision, holding “that the party opposing a peremptory strike must make a specific objection to the proponent's proffered race-neutral reason for the strike, if contested, to preserve the claim that the trial court erred in concluding that the proffered reason was genuine.” State v. Johnson (Johnson II), No. SC19-96, 295 So.3d 710, 712 (Fla. May 21, 2020).

Johnson failed to make a specific objection to the State's proffered race-neutral reason for the strike. So, consistent with the supreme court's opinion, we affirm Johnson's convictions and sentences.¹ See id. at 716.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We previously affirmed Johnson's judgment and sentence for the violation of probation proceedings. Johnson I, 268 So. 3d at 731.

Per Curiam.

Warner, Conner and Kuntz, JJ., concur.