# Williams v. State

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · June 7, 1989 · 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1383

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7576007

## Case

- **Full name:** Daniel L. WILLIAMS v. STATE of Florida
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** June 7, 1989
- **Citations:** 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1383; 547 So. 2d 179; 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3209; 1989 WL 58718
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hersey
- **Judges:** Hersey, Letts, Stone
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7576007

## Opinion text

HERSEY, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
For the reasons expressed in the dissent in Hill v. State, 547 So.2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), and on the same basis, I respectfully dissent. Appellant has not met his burden at either level of inquiry. What *181 we do here, in effect, is leap the hurdle of the “likelihood” inquiry, examine the reasons given by the state for its challenge, find them less than convincing [usurping the trial court’s function in this regard] and use this conclusion to “bootstrap” the initial step in the process. This does not comport with my interpretation of either Neil, Slappy or Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7576007. Public record. Not legal advice.