Background
Following a jury trial, Jamichael Williams was convicted of attempted kidnapping with intent to commit sexual battery and/or with intent to inflict bodily harm upon or to terrorize the victim. He was designated as a sexual offender and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment to be followed by five years of probation.
Williams appealed from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, where Julie Lyn Sercus was the trial judge. Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Andrea M. Norgard, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, represented Williams. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes and Nicole Rochelle Smith, Assistant Attorneys General, Tampa, represented the State.
The appellate court affirmed Williams’s judgment and sentence without discussion. It separately addressed his argument that his trial and conviction by a six-person jury constituted fundamental error because he was constitutionally entitled under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to a twelve-person jury. A footnote states that Williams acknowledged that this issue was not raised in the trial court.
The Court’s Holding
The per curiam opinion found Williams’s unpreserved six-person-jury argument unavailing. It cited article I, section 22 of the Florida Constitution, which provides that “[T]he number of jurors, not fewer than six, shall be fixed by law.” It also cited section 913.10, Florida Statutes (2022), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.270, both of which provide for twelve-person juries in capital cases and six-person juries in all other criminal cases.
The court relied on Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 86 (1970), which held that a twelve-member panel is not a necessary ingredient of trial by jury and that Florida’s use of six members did not violate Sixth Amendment rights as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. It also quoted Serrano-Delgado v. State, 392 So. 3d 251, 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024), for the proposition that Williams is binding precedent and “indisputably remains good law.”
Quoting Gonzalez v. State, 982 So. 2d 77, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), the court explained that it had no authority to overrule the Supreme Court precedent endorsing six-member juries as constitutional or the Florida law authorizing and perhaps compelling their use in noncapital criminal cases. The opinion concluded: “Affirmed.” KELLY, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., concurred.
Key Takeaways
- The Second District affirmed Williams’s judgment and sentence without discussion, while expressly rejecting his unpreserved fundamental-error challenge to the six-person jury.
- The court treated Williams v. Florida as binding precedent and said it lacked authority to overrule that Supreme Court decision or the Florida law governing six-member juries in noncapital cases.
- A footnote notes that the Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to review the issue in Kian v. State, 421 So. 3d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (table decision), cert. granted, Kian v. Florida, 146 S. Ct. 2732; the opinion does not state that the grant changed the governing precedent applied here.
Why It Matters
The decision applies existing constitutional and Florida authority to reject a twelve-person-jury claim in a noncapital criminal case, rather than announcing a general new rule about every possible jury challenge. Its discussion is tied to Williams’s unpreserved fundamental-error argument and the binding precedent the court said controlled.
The reference to Kian alerts practitioners that the Supreme Court has agreed to review the issue, but this opinion nevertheless affirmed on the authority before it. The opinion states that it is subject to revision prior to official publication.