Petition for Rehearing — James Randall Moehle, Petitioner v. Florida

No. 25-72

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JAMES RANDALL MOEHLE,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari

to the Florida First District Court of Appeal

PETITION FOR REHEARING

MICHAEL UFFERMAN

Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A.

2022-1 Raymond Diehl Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

(850) 386-2345

FL Bar No. 114227

Email: ufferman@uffermanlaw.com

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

1

The Petitioner, JAMES RANDALL MOEHLE,

respectfully petitions under Rule 44.2 for rehearing of

the Court’s October 6, 2025, order denying his petition

for a writ of certiorari. Substantial grounds not

previously presented merit reconsideration of the

denial.

The question presented for review in Mr.

Moehle’s case is “[w]hether this Court should

reevaluate its decision in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S.

78 (1970), and hold that twelve-person juries are

constitutionally mandated in criminal felony cases – or

at least in cases that involve a potential punishment of

life imprisonment?” Earlier this summer, in Minor v.

Florida, No. 24-7489, a petition with a similar question

presented (i.e., “[d]oes a state court defendant charged

with a felony have the right to trial by a

twelve-member of jury under the Sixth Amendment?”)

2

was filed in the Court. On July 24, 2025, the Court

ordered the respondent to file a response in Minor –

and as of the date of the instant pleading, the certiorari

petition in Minor is still pending in the Court. Also

earlier this summer, in Parada v. United States, No.

25-166, another petition with a similar question

presented (i.e., “[w]hether the Court should overrule

Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970)?”) was filed in

the Court. On September 8, 2025, the Court ordered

the respondent to file a response in Parada – and as of

the date of the instant pleading, the certiorari petition

in Parada is still pending in the Court.

In circumstances like these, petitions for

certiorari “regularly” are held to allow for the

possibility of a GVR order, see Lawrence v. Chater, 516

U.S. 163, 181 (1996) (Scalia, J., dissenting), and

petitions for rehearing have been granted to facilitate

3

such GVRs.1 That course is appropriate here also.

Therefore, Mr. Moehle’s petition for rehearing should

be granted (or held for consideration with Minor and

Parada at a future conference), and Mr. Moehle’s

petition for certiorari should be considered for a GVR

once Minor and Parada have been decided.

See

Lawrence, 516 U.S. at 167 (noting that a GVR may be

proper when an intervening decision yields “a

See, e.g., Kent Recycling Servs., LLC v. Army Corps

of Eng’rs, 578 U.S. 1019 (2016) (mem.) (granting rehearing

of denial of certiorari and GVR’ing in light of Army Corps of

Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 578 U.S. 590 (2016)); Liberty

Univ. v. Geithner, 568 U.S. 1022 (2012) (mem.) (granting

rehearing and GVR’ing in light of National Federation of

Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012));

Melson v. Allen, 561 U.S. 1001 (2010) (mem.) (granting

rehearing and GVR’ing in light of Holland v. Florida, 560

U.S. 631 (2010)); Soto v. United States, 543 U.S. 1117 (2005)

(mem.) (granting rehearing and GVR’ing in light of United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)); Hitchcock v. Florida,

505 U.S. 1215 (1992) (mem.) (granting rehearing and

GVR’ing in light of Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079

(1992)); Florida v. Rodriguez, 461 U.S. 940 (1983) (mem.)

(granting rehearing and GVR’ing in light of Florida v.

Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983)). See generally Stephen M.

Shapiro et al., Supreme Court Practice § 15.6(b), pp. 15-19

to 15-21 (11th ed. 2019).

1

4

reasonable probability that the decision below rests

upon a premise that the lower court would reject if

given the opportunity for further consideration”).

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the

appropriate course would be to grant Mr. Moehle’s

petition for rehearing or, at a minimum, hold it until

Minor and Parada have been decided.

*

*

*

The petition for rehearing should be granted (or,

alternatively, held pending resolutions in Minor and

Parada).

Respectfully Submitted,

MICHAEL UFFERMAN

Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A.

2022-1 Raymond Diehl Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

(850) 386-2345

FL Bar No. 114227

Email: ufferman@uffermanlaw.com

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

October 31, 2025

5

CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

As counsel of record for petitioner, I certify that

this petition for rehearing is restricted to the grounds

specified in Rule 44.2 and is presented in good faith

and not for delay.

/s/ Michael Ufferman

MICHAEL UFFERMAN

Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

October 31, 2025