OAKLEY
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A conviction by a six-person jury in a serious felony case does not violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments under current precedent.
[1] Witness testimony identifying a defendant based on surveillance footage does not invade the province of the jury when the witnesses are in a position to observe and ident…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOakley was convicted by a six-person jury of armed robbery with great bodily harm, aggravated battery with great bodily harm, felon in possession of a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fundamental Error Review cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
KEMAR KASIO OAKLEY, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
No. 2D2025-1120
September 9, 2026
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Kimberly K. Fernandez, Judge.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison C. Heim, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
A six-person jury found Kemar Kasio Oakley guilty of armed robbery with great bodily harm (Count I), aggravated battery with great bodily harm (Count II), felon in possession of a firearm (Count IV), and carrying a concealed firearm (Count V). The trial court sentenced Mr. Oakley to concurrent mandatory minimum terms of thirty-five years in prison on Counts I and II, fifteen years in prison with a three-year mandatory minimum on Count IV, and five years in prison on Count V. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). He presents two issues.
First, Mr. Oakley contends that the trial court erred in allowing three State witnesses to identify him on surveillance footage because the witnesses were in no better position than the jurors to do so, and their testimony invaded the province of the jury. We are unpersuaded.
Second, he asserts that his conviction by a six-person jury violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. He maintains that this constitutes fundamental error. Under current precedent, Mr. Oakley's conviction by a six-person jury was constitutionally appropriate. See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 86 (1970); see also Serrano-Delgado v. State, 392 So. 3d 251, 253-54 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). But see Kian v. Florida, 421 So. 3d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (table decision); Petition for Writ of Certiorari at ii, Kian v. Florida, No. 25-6623 (U.S. Jan. 9, 2026) (presenting the Court with the question of whether petitioner "was derived [sic] of his right, under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, to a trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a serious felony"), cert. granted, 2026 WL 1718018 (U.S. June 15, 2026) (No. 25-6623).
Affirmed.
SILBERMAN, LaROSE, and GUARD, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1970)
- Hamed Kian v. State, 421 So. 3d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)