STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
STEVEN RAY GUNTER
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 trial court's dismissal order based on a panel decision that is later overruled by the same court's en banc decision must be reversed when the case is a 'pipeline case' not yet final on appeal.
[1] A trial court's order granting a motion to dismiss based on a panel decision must be reversed when that panel decision is subsequently overruled by the court's en banc de…
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 intelligence“A 'pipeline case' is one in which a conviction is not final by trial or appeal at the time a controlling decision is issued by the supreme court.”
The court cited Reed v. State to explain that pipeline cases must be reconsidered when controlling precedent changes before the appellate process is complete.
Steven Ray Gunter was charged in late 2024 with possessing a driver license with an altered Sexual Predator designation. In March 2025, Gunter moved t…
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.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 5D2025-1484 LT Case No. 2024-CF-004645-A
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant,
V.
STEVEN RAY GUNTER, Appellee.
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County. Barbara Kissner, Judge.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard A. Pallas, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Ali L. Hansen, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
October 16, 2026
PER CURIAM.
In late 2024, Steven Ray Gunter was charged with possessing a driver license upon which the required “Sexual Predator" designation had been altered. In January 2025, this Court issued a divided panel opinion in Crist v. State, 430 So. 3d 211 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2025) (Crist I), holding that the Sexual Predator designation "is impermissibly compelled speech under the prevailing judicial test." Id. at 222.
On March 27, 2025, Gunter moved to dismiss his case in the trial court, citing to Crist I. The State contended, among other arguments, that the mandate had not yet issued and this Court was rehearing Crist I en banc. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss on May 13, 2025, finding the Crist I decision controlling. The State then appealed to this Court a week later.
While the State's appeal was pending in this Court, the en banc decision was issued. See Crist v. State, 419 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025) (Crist II). In Crist II, this Court rejected Crist's First Amendment challenge and held that the designation on the driver license does not compel speech. Id. at 197–98.
Crist then sought review in the Florida Supreme Court. In his appellate brief, Gunter acknowledged that his case is a "pipeline case" and that this Court should await the determination of whether the supreme court accepts jurisdiction before reversing the trial court's dismissal order. Thereafter, the Florida Supreme Court declined jurisdiction thereby ending the matter in the Florida judicial system. Crist's petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was denied on October 5, 2026, thereby ending the matter conclusively. See Crist v. Florida, No. 25-7426, 2026 WL 2976473 (Oct. 5, 2026).
Because this case is a “pipeline case," the trial court's order granting the motion to dismiss, which relied on Crist I, is reversed in light of Crist II, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. See Reed v. State, 565 So. 2d 708, 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (“A ‘pipeline case' is one in which a conviction is not final by trial or appeal at the time a controlling decision is issued by the supreme court. The appellate process is not completed until the mandate is issued.”(citation omitted)).
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
MAKAR, HARRIS, and MACIVER, JJ., concur.