Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Adrian Shane Campbell, Petitioner v. Florida

No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ADRIAN SHANE CAMPBELL, PETITIONER

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT.

_____________

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

_____________

APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

DANIEL EISINGER

Public Defender

Paul Edward Petillo

Assistant Public Defender

Counsel of Record

Office of the Public Defender

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida

421 Third Street

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

(561) 355-7600; (561) 624-6560

ppetillo@pd15.state.fl.us

appeals@pd15.org

1

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ADRIAN SHANE CAMPBELL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2025-1596

[June 18, 2026]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach

County;

Sarah

Willis,

Judge;

L.T.

Case

No.

502022CF009150AXXXMB.

Daniel Eisinger, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nathanial

LeBlanc, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, FORST and SHAW, JJ., concur.

*

*

*

Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

A. Jurisdictional Statement

Appellant was convicted by a six-person jury of battery,

aggravated battery with a firearm, and shooting into a building. R

84-85, 93-94. He was sentenced to a year in jail on the battery

count, 25 years mandatory minimum on the aggravated battery

count, and 10 years in prison on the shooting into a building count,

all the sentences to run concurrently. R 156-57, 197-98. He filed a

timely notice of appeal. R 166. Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(3) (notice of

appeal must be filed within 30 days of order imposing sentence).

This Court has jurisdiction to review a criminal judgment and

sentence under article V, section 4(b)(1), Florida Constitution;

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(1)(A); and sections

924.02, 924.05, and 924.06(1), Florida Statutes.

B. Trial Evidence

Officer Morris was called to the Super Eight Motel in Lantana,

and he met there A. A. who had a gunshot wound to her hand and

chest. T 221-22. Fire rescue took her to the hospital. T 223. Morris

found a spent bullet on the ground, as well as a smashed tablet. T

3

POINT III

APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT

RIGHT TO TRIAL BY A TWELVE-MEMBER JURY

Appellant recognizes that Florida allows a jury of six in noncapital cases. Art. I, § 22, Fla. Const.; § 913.10, Fla. Stat. The

Supreme Court held this does not violate the Sixth Amendment in

Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970). He submits, however, that

Williams

was

incorrectly

decided

and

is

contrary

to

the

understanding of the Sixth Amendment at the time of the Founding.

See Cunningham v. State, 144 S. Ct. 1287 (2024) (Gorscuch, J.,

dissenting from denial of certiorari).

Appellant also recognizes that this Court has rejected this

claim. Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

Nonetheless, he maintains that the correct view is set out in Justice

Gorsuch’s dissent in Cunningham. In addition, there is currently

pending in the United States Supreme Court a case raising this

issue: Minor v. Florida, No. 24-7489. The Court ordered the State to

respond to the petition. This is some indication that the Court is

once again interested in addressing the issue.

4

The error is fundamental. Waiver of the constitutional right of

trial by the proper number of jurors must be made personally by

the defendant. See Blair v. State, 698 So. 2d 1210, 1217 (Fla. 1997).

Appellant did not waive his right to a twelve-person jury. Further,

section 913.10, Florida Statutes, is unconstitutional on its face. A

defendant may raise the facial constitutionality of a statute for the

first time on appeal. In State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993);

Mincey v. State, 889 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Appellant’s conviction by a six-member jury violates the Sixth

Amendment to the United States Constitution. The conviction and

sentence should be reversed with instructions to afford appellant a

new trial.

5