Background
Jacquelin Alexandra Coppus Mullins was convicted and sentenced in Sarasota County Court for trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance. She appealed challenges to evidentiary rulings, the denial of a judgment of acquittal, and an asserted sentencing error.
In a supplemental brief, Mullins argued that her conviction by a six-person jury violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. She had not objected to the jury size in the trial court.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. It affirmed without discussion the issues raised in Mullins’s initial brief and addressed only her constitutional challenge to the six-person jury.
Florida law permits six-person juries in noncapital criminal cases, and Williams v. Florida holds that this practice does not violate the Sixth or Fourteenth Amendments. The court held that it remained bound by Williams and controlling Florida law, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Kian v. Florida. Because the trial court followed controlling law, there was no error, much less fundamental error.
Key Takeaways
- Florida may use six-person juries in noncapital criminal cases under controlling state and federal precedent.
- A grant of certiorari does not overrule existing Supreme Court precedent.
- An unpreserved jury-size challenge was not fundamental error where the trial court followed binding law.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Florida appellate courts must continue applying Williams and Florida’s six-person-jury provisions unless and until the U.S. Supreme Court changes the governing rule. The court expressly left open what effect a future merits decision in Kian could have on cases still pending on direct review.