Tolliver v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledSeptember 9, 2026
Docket2D2025-1345
StatusPublished
๐ฐ News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
JARREL EDWARD TOLLIVER,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D2025-1345
September 9, 2026
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Larry Keith Meyer,
Judge.
Blair Allen, Public Defender and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant Public
Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General and Cynthia Richards, Assistant
Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
KELLY, Judge.
Jarrell Tolliver appeals his judgment and sentences for trafficking
in fentanyl and introduction or possession of contraband in a county
detention center. We find no merit in the arguments Mr. Tolliver has
raised in this appeal, including his claim that his conviction by a six-
person jury rather than a jury of twelve was unconstitutional. We write
only to comment on a development that occurred during the pendency of
this appeal. On June 15, 2026, the United States Supreme Court in
Kian v. Florida, No. SC2025-6623, 2026 WL 1718018 (U.S. June 15,
2026), agreed to take up the constitutionality of the Florida statute1
allowing a six-person jury in criminal cases. The question presented in
Kian is whether the Court should overrule Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S.
78 (1970), and hold that the Sixth Amendment requires the use of
twelve-person juries in serious criminal cases. Since then, predictably,
this court has received a steady stream of briefs raising this issue,
including a supplemental brief filed by Mr. Tolliver. While acknowledging
that Williams binds this court unless and until the Supreme Court
overrules it, many (but not all) of the briefs we are receiving ask for relief
other than or in addition to a reversal. Specifically, as in this case,
counsel asks that we hold the case in abeyance pending the Court's
decision in Kian. As a court, we have concluded that the better course is
to decline to hold these cases in abeyance and let appellants who wish to
do so further pursue their argument in the United States Supreme
Court. Already, a handful of cases raising this issue have been filed in
that Court where they await the decision in Kian.
Affirmed.
BLACK and GUARD, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
1 ยง 913.10, Fla. Stat. (2026).