Background
Julio Velazquez appealed his judgment and sentence for two non-capital felonies from the Circuit Court for Lee County, Florida. He argued that Florida’s six-person jury requirement for non-capital felony cases violated his right to a trial by a twelve-person jury under the United States Constitution. Because he had not preserved this argument at trial, he sought relief under the narrow doctrine of fundamental error.
The Sixth District Court of Appeal rejected the argument and affirmed. The court explained that since 1877, Florida has permitted trial by six-person juries in non-capital cases. It relied on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 103 (1970), which upheld Florida’s six-person jury scheme against a Sixth Amendment challenge, concluding that the petitioner’s rights were not violated by a six-person rather than a twelve-person jury.
The court acknowledged that the Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Kian v. Florida, No. 25-6623, 2026 WL 1718018 (U.S. June 15, 2026), to reconsider Williams. However, it emphasized that a grant of certiorari decides nothing and overrules nothing. Unless and until the Supreme Court overrules Williams, it remains current and binding precedent that all lower courts must follow.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Velazquez was entitled to no relief because Williams remains binding precedent. It rejected his fundamental error argument, reasoning that because Williams is still good law, the trial court did not err—much less commit fundamental error—by following it. The court cited Mullins v. State, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1876, 2026 WL 2651638 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 9, 2026), which held that a trial court following binding law commits no error, and Jack v. State, 349 So. 3d 925, 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022), which similarly found no fundamental error where a defendant was tried by a six-person jury on noncapital charges.
The court also noted that even if Velazquez had preserved his twelve-person jury argument, he would still be entitled to no relief because Williams remains controlling. It refused to speculate about what the Supreme Court may or may not do in Kian, or about potential implications for cases pending on direct review. Quoting Rogers v. State, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1313, 2026 WL 1862160 (Fla. 6th DCA June 29, 2026), the court observed that claims based on a higher court’s grant of certiorari are speculative and premature, and that questions of harmless error, structural error, and retroactivity would remain even if Williams were overruled.
Accordingly, the court affirmed Velazquez’s judgment and sentence. It also affirmed as to all other arguments raised without further discussion.
Key Takeaways
- Florida’s six-person jury requirement for non-capital felonies remains valid under binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, specifically Williams v. Florida.
- A grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court does not overrule existing precedent; lower courts must continue to follow Williams unless and until it is expressly overruled.
- An unpreserved challenge to a six-person jury cannot succeed on fundamental error review because following binding precedent is not error at all.
- Even preserved challenges to six-person juries currently fail under controlling Florida and federal law.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the stability of Florida’s six-person jury system for non-capital felonies despite pending Supreme Court review in Kian v. Florida. It signals to trial courts and practitioners that existing precedent remains fully operative, and that speculative arguments about potential changes in the law will not succeed on direct appeal.
The ruling also clarifies the procedural posture for defendants: unpreserved jury-size claims are barred absent fundamental error, and no such error exists when the trial court follows binding authority. If the Supreme Court eventually overrules Williams, defendants whose cases are final may need to seek post-conviction relief rather than rely on direct appeal.