Jordan Omarvius Rogers v. State of Florida

Summary

The Sixth District Court of Appeal of Florida denied Jordan Omarvius Rogers's motion for supplemental briefing concerning whether a six-person jury in his noncapital felony case violated the Sixth Amendment. The court held that the issue was not raised at trial or in the initial brief and that supplemental briefing was unwarranted based on the speculative status of pending United States Supreme Court review in Kian v. Florida. The court noted that any future change in the law could raise separate questions concerning harmless error, structural error, and retroactivity.

Holdings

1. A party generally receives one opportunity to file an initial brief, answer brief, and reply brief, and supplemental briefing is an exception within the appellate court's discretion. The court denied supplemental briefing because Rogers sought to raise a new issue that was not presented below or in his initial brief.
2. An issue not raised in the initial appellate brief is waived or abandoned, even if the issue might otherwise involve a facial constitutional challenge or alleged fundamental error.
3. A facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute may be raised for the first time on appeal, but that principle does not authorize a party to introduce the issue for the first time through a supplemental brief after omitting it from the initial brief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should permit supplemental briefing on a new constitutional challenge to Florida's six-person jury system when the issue was not raised in the trial court or the appellant's initial brief.
2. Whether the United States Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Kian v. Florida justified supplemental briefing on the jury-size issue.

Disposition

other