Full Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JACQUELIN ALEXANDRA COPPUS MULLINS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D2025-0655 September 9, 2026 Appeal from the County Court for Sarasota County; Maryann Olson Uzabel, Judge. Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Caroline Joan S. Picart, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sonia C. Lawson, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. LABRIT, Judge. Jacquelin Alexandra Coppus Mullins appeals her judgment and sentence for trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance. In her initial brief, she argues that the trial court erred by denying her motion in limine and overruling related hearsay objections, by denying her motion for a judgment of acquittal, and by denying her motion to correct sentencing error. In her supplemental brief, she argues that her conviction by a six-person jury violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. We affirm the issues raised in the initial brief without further comment. We write only to address the issue raised in the supplemental brief. Ms. Mullins argues that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments entitled her to a twelve-person jury. She did not object to the six-person jury below. Thus, her claim is reviewable, at most, for fundamental error. See Serrano-Delgado v. State, 392 So. 3d 251, 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). There was no error. Florida law provides for twelve jurors in capital cases and six jurors in all other criminal cases. See art. I, § 22, Fla. Const.; § 913.10, Fla. Stat. (2024); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.270. And in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 86 (1970), the United States Supreme Court held that Florida's use of six-person juries does not violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. We have already rejected the argument that Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020), permits this court to disregard Williams. See Serrano-Delgado, 392 So. 3d at 253-54. Ms. Mullins's argument is therefore directed to the wrong court. She asks us to anticipate that the Supreme Court will overrule Williams in Kian v. Florida, No. 25-6623, 2026 WL 1718018 (U.S. June 15, 2026). But a grant of certiorari decides nothing and overrules nothing. Unless and until the Supreme Court overrules Williams, we must follow it. See Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989). Likewise, we may not depart from controlling Florida law authorizing six-person juries in noncapital cases. See Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431, 434 (Fla. 1973). 2 The trial court followed the law it was bound to apply. That is not error, much less fundamental error. We therefore affirm.1 Affirmed. MORRIS and SMITH, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication. 1 We express no opinion concerning the effect that any future merits decision in Kian may have on this or another case that remains pending on direct review. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328 (1987). 3