Petition for Rehearing — Mark Todd Minor, Petitioner v. Florida

No. 24-7489

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

___________

MARK TODD MINOR,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida

___________

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OUT-OF-TIME

PETITION FOR REHEARING

___________

GARY LEE CALDWELL

OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER

FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

421 Third Street

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

(561) 355-7600

gcaldwel@pd15.org

DEVI M. RAO

Counsel of Record

RODERICK & SOLANGE

MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER

501 H Street NE, Suite 275

Washington, DC 20002

(202) 869-3490

devi.rao@macarthurjustice.org

Counsel for Petitioner

1.

Petitioner respectfully moves for leave to file the annexed petition for

rehearing of this Court’s order denying his petition for a writ of certiorari, entered on

February 23, 2026. See Sup. Ct. R. 44.2.

2.

Petitioner’s time to file a petition for rehearing under Rule 44.2 expired

on March 20, 2026. Petitioner did not file within that period because the grounds for

rehearing did not then exist. On June 15, 2026—months after the rehearing deadline

had passed—this Court granted certiorari in Kian v. Florida, No. 25-6623, to decide

the same question presented here: whether Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970),

should be overruled.

3.

This intervening development warrants leave to file out of time.

Petitioner was convicted in Florida state court by a six-member jury, and sentenced

to a functional life sentence. In his petition for certiorari, Petitioner asked this Court

to overrule Williams and hold that the Sixth Amendment requires a twelve-member

jury in serious criminal cases. Kian presents the same question. Indeed, the petition

in Kian cited this case by name, stating that it presented “the same question” as in

“Minor v. Florida, No. 24-7489,” and asking that the petition be “granted or held

pending the disposition” of this case. Kian Pet. at ii, 27.

4.

The grant of certiorari in Kian is an “intervening circumstance[] of a

substantial or controlling effect.” Sup. Ct. R. 44.2. This Court has a practice of

granting rehearing of orders denying certiorari when it subsequently grants

certiorari on a “related issue in another case.” Stephen M. Shapiro et al., Supreme

Court Practice, Ch. 15.6.(b) (11th ed. 2019) (ebook). Had Kian been granted while the

1

petition for certiorari here was pending, the ordinary course would have been to hold

this case pending Kian and then dispose of it consistently with the Court’s decision

there. Id. at Ch.6.31.(e). Leave to file the annexed rehearing petition would permit

the Court to do now what it ordinarily does when related petitions present the same

question: preserve its ability to resolve like cases alike.

5.

This Court has the inherent authority to consider an untimely petition

for rehearing where the interests of justice so require. See United States v. Ohio

Power Co., 353 U.S. 98, 99 (1957) (per curiam); Gondeck v. Pan American World

Airways, Inc., 382 U.S. 25 (1965). That authority is appropriately exercised here.

Petitioner could not have anticipated, during the 25-day rehearing period, that the

Court would grant Kian later in the same Term months after the rehearing period

had expired.

6.

The equities also favor granting this motion. Petitioner preserved his

Sixth Amendment objection at every stage. His case comes to the Court on direct

review from a final federal criminal judgment. And if Kian results in a new rule of

criminal procedure, Petitioner’s ability to obtain relief through collateral review may

be substantially complicated by finality doctrines. Allowing the annexed petition to

be filed would avoid that complication and would ensure that Petitioner—who will

otherwise spend the rest of his life in prison, convicted by a constitutionally-infirm

jury—is not denied the benefit of a decision in Kian solely because of the

happenstance of the Court’s docket timing.

2

7.

For these reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court grant

this motion for leave to file the annexed out-of-time petition for rehearing.

Respectfully submitted,

DEVI M. RAO

Counsel of Record

RODERICK & SOLANGE

MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER

501 H Street NE, Suite 275

Washington, DC 20002

(202) 869-3490

devi.rao@macarthurjustice.org

GARY LEE CALDWELL

OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER

FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

421 Third Street

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

(561) 355-7600

gcaldwel@pd15.org

Counsel for Petitioner

August 28, 2026

3