Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Diana Louise MATTHEWS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Following a jury trial, Diana Louise Matthews was convicted of attempted murder in the first degree with a firearm as charged and sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment with a twenty-five-year minimum mandatory. We affirm her judgment and sentence without discussion.
As to Ms. Matthews’ unpreserved argument 1 that her trial and conviction by a six-person jury constituted harmful fundamental error because she was constitutionally entitled under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to a twelve-person jury, we find this argument unavailing. See art. I, § 22, Fla. Const. (“[T]he number of jurors, not fewer than six, shall be fixed by law.”); § 913.10, Fla. Stat. (2019) (“Twelve persons shall constitute a jury to try all capital cases, and six persons shall constitute a jury to try all other criminal cases.”); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.270 (“Twelve persons shall constitute a jury to try all capital cases, and 6 persons shall constitute a jury to try all other criminal cases.”); Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 86, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970) (“We hold that the 12-man panel is not a necessary ingredient of ‘trial by jury,’ and that respondent's refusal to impanel more than the six members provided for by Florida law did not violate petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights as applied to the States through the Fourteenth.”). Although the United States Supreme Court has granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in Kian v. Florida, ––– U.S. ––––, 146 S. Ct. 2732, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2026), and may overrule Williams, Williams remains binding precedent and it mandates the rejection of Ms. Matthews’ claim. See Serrano-Delgado v. State, 392 So. 3d 251, 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024).
Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. Ms. Matthews acknowledges that this issue was not raised in the trial court. The issue was also not raised in her initial brief or her reply brief but was instead raised for the first time in a supplemental initial brief, which this court gave her leave to file.
PER CURIAM.
MORRIS, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and GUARD, JJ., Concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 2D2025-0285
Decided: October 28, 2026
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)