HERNANDEZ v. STATE (2023)

Affirmed. See Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759, 764 n.8 (Fla. 1996) (“Relevant circumstances [surrounding a strike] may include—but are not limited to—the following: the racial make-up of the venire; prior strikes exercised against the same racial group; a strike based on a reason equally applicable to an unchallenged juror; or singling the juror out for special treatment.”); Lidiano v. State, 967 So. 2d 972, 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (explaining that the assessment of motive and credibility in the context of the proffered race-neutral rationale for a strike is a “matter solely within the purview of the finder of fact” unless the record establishes that the conclusion reached is clearly erroneous); Symonette v. State, 778 So. 2d 500, 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“The fact that such a juror asserts that he or she can, nevertheless, be fair and impartial, does not mean that the state must be satisfied with the response.”); see also E.A. v. State, 599 So. 2d 251, 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“The issue of whether a victim incurred great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement is a question of fact. The fact finder's findings should not be disturbed on appeal where the findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence.”) (citation omitted).

PER CURIAM.