Full Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DARRELL WAYNE JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D2025-2344 October 30, 2026 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Joseph A. Bulone, Judge. Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Kimberly Nolen Hopkins, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tayna Alexander, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. SLEET, Judge. Darrell Johnson appeals from his judgment and sentence for battery on a person sixty-five years of age or older. Johnson was convicted following a jury trial, and he was sentenced to 132.03 months' imprisonment. We affirm. Johnson makes several arguments on appeal. First, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to conduct an adequate Nelson1 hearing. Second, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his repeated requests to disqualify the judge. Third, he argues that the trial court fundamentally erred in failing to sua sponte order a competency hearing. We find no merit to these arguments and comment on them no further. Johnson also argues on appeal that the trial court committed fundamental error by allowing him to be tried for a noncapital offense using a six-person jury.2 He maintains that section 913.10, Florida Statutes—which provides that "[t]welve persons shall constitute a jury to try all capital cases, and six persons shall constitute a jury to try all other criminal cases"—is unconstitutional on its face. We conclude that Johnson has failed to demonstrate any error, let alone fundamental error, with regard to this argument. See Serrano-Delgado v. State, 392 So. 3d 251, 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) ("In Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 86 (Fla. 1970), the United States Supreme Court held that Florida's use of a six-person jury does not violate the Sixth or Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that no historical evidence shows that a twelve- person jury was an indispensable component of the Sixth Amendment or that the Framers intended to require a twelve-person jury. Williams is binding precedent and 'indisputably remains good law.' " (citation omitted) (quoting Simpson v. State, 368 So. 3d 513, 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (Pratt, J., concurring))); see also Jack v. State, 349 So. 3d 925, 927 1 Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). 2 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, 146 S. Ct. 2732 (2026). 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) ("[N]o fundamental error occurred when [a]ppellant was tried and convicted by a six-person jury on noncapital charges."). Affirmed. NORTHCUTT and LaROSE, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication. 3