WILLIAMS

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JAMICHAEL WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2025-0181

November 6, 2026

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Julie Lyn Sercus, Judge.

Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Andrea M. Norgard, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes and Nicole Rochelle Smith, Assistant Attorneys General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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. We affirm his judgment and sentence without discussion.

As to Mr. Williams' unpreserved argument¹ 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,² we find this argument unavailing. See art. I, § 22, Fla. Const. ("[T]he number of jurors, not fewer than six, shall be fixed by law."); § 913.10, Fla. Stat. (2022) ("Twelve persons shall constitute a jury to try all capital cases, and six persons shall constitute a jury to try all other criminal cases."); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.270 ("Twelve persons shall constitute a jury to try all capital cases, and 6 persons shall constitute a jury to try all other criminal cases."); Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 86 (1970) ("We hold that the 12-man panel is not a necessary ingredient of 'trial by jury,' and that respondent's refusal to impanel more than the six members provided for by Florida law did not violate petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights as applied to the States through the Fourteenth."); Serrano-Delgado v. State, 392 So. 3d 251, 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) ("In Williams[, 399 U.S. at 86], the United States Supreme Court held that Florida's use of a six-person jury does not violate the Sixth or Fourteenth Amendment. . . . Williams is binding precedent and 'indisputably remains good law.' " (first quoting Simpson v. State, 368 So. 3d 513, 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (Pratt, J., concurring); then citing Morales-Alaffita v. State, 376 So. 3d 791, 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023); then citing Gonzalez v. State, 982 So. 2d 77, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); and then citing Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA

1 Mr. Williams acknowledges that this issue was not raised in the trial court. 2 We note that the United States Supreme Court has recently granted a petition for writ of certiorari to review this issue in Kian v. State, 421 So. 3d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (table decision), cert. granted. Kian v. Florida, 146 S. Ct. 2732.

2022))); Gonzalez, 982 So. 2d at 78 ("[T]his court has no authority to overrule the precedent from the United States Supreme Court that endorsed the use of a jury with only six members as constitutional, nor the Florida law that authorizes and perhaps compels the use of sixmember juries in non-capital criminal cases.").

Affirmed.

KELLY, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.