Jamael Bell v. State of Florida

2025-1258Fladistctapp4

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL O F T HE STATE OF F LORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
JAMAEL BELL,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 4D2025-1258
[April 8, 2026]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County; Sherri L. Collins, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502023CF006805A.
Daniel Eisinger, Public Defender, and Jeffrey L. Anderson, Assistant
Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
James 	Uthmeier, 	Attorney 	General, 	Tallahassee, 	and 	Luke 	R.
Napodano, 	Senior 	Assistant 	Attorney 	General, 	West 	Palm 	Beach, 	for
appellee.
PER CURIAM .
Affirmed. 	See, inter alia, Carter v. State, 423 So. 3d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA
2025) (citing cases that rejected challenges to the constitutionality of
section 790.23); Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
(noting that this court has no authority to overrule the United States
Supreme Court precedent that held the use of a jury with only six members
was constitutional).
KLINGENSMITH, S HAW and LOTT , JJ., concur.
* 	* 	*
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.

OCR transcription; preserved printed pages are authoritative

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

JAMAEL BELL,
Appellant,

Vv.

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.

No. 4D2025-1258
[April 8, 2026]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County; Sherri L. Collins, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502023CFOO06805A.

Daniel Eisinger, Public Defender, and Jeffrey L. Anderson, Assistant
Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R.
Napodano, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for
appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See, inter alia, Carter v. State, 423 So. 3d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA
2025) (citing cases that rejected challenges to the constitutionality of
section 790.23); Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
(noting that this court has no authority to overrule the United States
Supreme Court precedent that held the use of a jury with only six members
was constitutional).

KLINGENSMITH, SHAW and LOTT, JJ., concur.

* * *

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

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.